Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Channel Tunnel

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links between Wales, the west of England and the channel tunnel.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Secretary of State and the chairman of British Rail meet regularly and channel tunnel services from the regions, including Wales and the west of England, are often discussed.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that just before Christmas, Wales and the nation lost the Powell Duffryn wagon construction works in Cardiff and with it the expertise of a century's trading and the ability, among other things, to construct low-axle rail freight wagons which would have enabled areas such as south Wales and the west of England to trade directly with firms on the continent? Why does not the Minister recognise that the lack of orders from British Rail is doing incalculable damage to firms such as the one that used to operate in Cardiff? When will he do something to offer protection to the British rail industry?

Mr. Freeman: I regret the announcement by Powell Duffryn. I had the opportunity to visit its French subsidiary about two years ago and saw the value of its work. But under the rules for open procurement the responsibility rests with British Rail; its decision about the procurement of freight wagons and the special axles and wheels required for them has nothing to do with the alleged dearth of orders.
As for the future for rolling stock orders, I am pleased that progress has been made on the new leasing arrangement of £150 million for British Rail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly make a statement on that.

Mr. Adley: In wishing my hon. Friend and his colleagues—and you, Madam Speaker—a happy new year, may I ask whether my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend would prefer the chairman of British Rail to be a man who was willing, regardless of his own views, to accept whatever the Government produced by way of plans for the future of British Rail—in other words, a yes man—or would they prefer someone who gave, publicly if

necessary, his honest appraisal of the Government's proposals and stated how he saw the future for Britain's railways under those proposals?

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that the chairman of British Rail discharges his duty with distinction and enjoys the confidence of the Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants a chairman of British Rail who will speak his mind, not someone who will meekly agree with any statement made by a Member on either side of the House. I can also confirm that the chairman of British Rail agrees with the broad objectives of the Government and I feel quite certain that he will help fully to implement them.

Mr. Wilson: Is not it becoming increasingly clear that these ill-thought-out and unworkable plans for privatisation are a blight on jobs, on safety and on the future of the railways in general? Has a route finally been advised to the Government for the rail link with the channel tunnel? If so, will the Minister undertake today to publish it in the near future as a basis for full public discussion?

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has received a report from British Rail on the route for the channel tunnel rail link from Folkestone to King's Cross. It will be for him to consider that report carefully; but I can give the House the assurance that I gave on 14 December—the last time we debated this—that the Government will move as quickly as possible to commence the procedure of public consultation.

Transport Supplementary Grant

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes will be able to start as a result of the support he is giving to local authorities by means of the transport supplementary grant.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): As I explained in my statement to the House on 15 December 1992, 41 new major schemes due to start in 1993–94 were accepted for transport supplementary grant. These schemes are listed in the Official Report.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful for that encouraging reply, which will do much for the country's infrastructure and for providing jobs. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that my constituents in the village of Spofforth, which lies south of Harrogate on the main link road between the A1 and Harrogate, suffer from increasing volumes of traffic and share my considerable annoyance that the bypass, due to start in September this year, was delayed by North Yorkshire county council until January 1994? It is to be delayed again into the 1994–95 financial year. Will the Minister be kind enough to look into this personally to see whether the start date can be brought back to January 1994?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments. He is right that this is a major capital investment in the country's roads. It will be £1,047 million in the coming year, which is a record, in a difficult year. However, despite a good number of new schemes, as my hon. Friend knows there are always many more candidates than can be entertained. The problem about the Spofforth bypass scheme was that it was a doubtful starter in 1993–94. As my hon. Friend said, the forecast starting date


was put back to January 1994, but in our experience forecast start dates are often optimistic and I am afraid that there were better candidates. I cannot accept any more schemes for this year, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about next year.

Ms. Walley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is a major problem about the way in which his Department is determining priorities? Is not it the case that the amount that local authorities can spend on local schemes rather than major schemes—on the sort of projects that local people want for environmental traffic calming measures—has been reduced from 7 to 5.7 per cent? When will he give local councils the real right to determine the priorities that they know are needed in their communities?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady is wrong. By and large, we follow the priorities advanced by local authorities for major schemes. As she will know, we have also increased substantially the amount available for local safety schemes, which often include traffic-calming measures, for this year and next year. The figures are up from £31 million to £50 million. I know that local authorities approve of those schemes; we are responding positively to their priorities.

Motorway Repairs

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

Mr. MacGregor: I receive a steady flow of representations about motorway repairs, mainly concerned with individual cases.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the public are satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? I appreciate that there has been an improvement in recent years, but has he any proposals to improve the situation further?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that there have been substantial improvements, not least because the introduction of the lane rental scheme means that motorway repairs are completed faster here than anywhere else in the world. Our pioneering scheme has been copied around the world. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we shall be moving from a level of 50 per cent. of motorway repairs carried out through lane rental contracts to achieving our target next year of all schemes where lane rental is applicable being carried out in that way. We are also making fast progress in other directions.

A1 (Motorway Standard)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties are to be demolished to allow the A1 to be improved to three-lane motorway from the Barnsdale Bar area to the Boot and Shoe interchange; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): On the basis of the present preliminary proposals, two residential properties and one commercial property would be demolished.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider the properties that will be blighted by the proposals, especially Ferrybridge school, which lies in an area where a 16-lane motorway will pass through a conurbation? When will the Minister consider bypassing towns? When will he stop acting like a vandal and make sure that we have motorways which take traffic away from towns and villages and not through them?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have gone through a thorough public consultation on this part of the A1 improvement. Almost 2,000 people visited the exhibition or wrote to us. About 60 per cent. of those people fully supported what we intend to do and only 16 per cent. opposed it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard from London to Newcastle will bypass many towns. We are also being especially careful to avoid areas of important countryside, such as sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, I strongly refute the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

Motorway Noise

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he will take to reduce the levels of noise from motorways.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: We are proceeding on two fronts: ever-stricter noise limits on vehicles, together with the practical measures that are available when motorways are improved or constructed. These include noise screening by earthworks and barriers, quieter road surfaces and the provision of insulation.

Mr. Willetts: I welcome the steps that the Department is taking to reduce the level of noise from motorways. However, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the notorious roar produced by the experimental concrete surface on the A27 at Havant? Does not that make it a prime candidate for a new experiment, with a quiet noise-absorbent surface?

Mr. Carlisle: I well know the campaign for a quieter A27 that my hon. Friend has waged on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, when this road was built with concrete, it was over-textured. However, we are making some improvements to that road and we shall continue to do so.
I was pleased in the summer to announce a new policy on designing roads to ensure that they are less noisy. That entails providing porous asphalt where it will work and that will halve the level of noise. Before Christmas, I was delighted to be able to say that we are going ahead with porous asphalt on the A5 at Fazeley. Wherever possible in future, we shall meet the requirement for less noise. We shall look to better textures wherever we can.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that many homes are badly affected by motorway noise and that that is certainly the case with the M4 around Newport? Many people seem to be caught out by anomalies in the regulations. Will the Minister look into this to see whether the regulations can be relaxed a little?

Mr. Carlisle: I am happy to look at anything that we can do to improve the situation. As I said, noise is the one sector in which we must do better. I know that many


people are concerned about noise when new roads are built. We now have extensive powers for insulation and the Land Compensation Act 1973 provides for compensation to be paid where the value of property declines.

Speed Cameras

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that speed signs are placed beside camera signs in zoned areas for spy cameras; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steven Norris): Observation of speed limits has markedly improved where cameras, backed by warning signs, have been installed. This suggests that drivers are well aware of the speed limit in force and that signing arrangements are adequate.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that most, if not all, motorists are anxious to stick to speed limits, particularly where there are spy cameras? Will he assist them by eliminating small speed signs, which are often illegible, particularly where speed limits change rapidly? Will he also place visible speed signs alongside the spy cameras, further to assist motorists to stick to speed limits, as I am sure they are anxious to do?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will know that the speed limit signage is in accordance with national criteria and where there are 40 mph or 50 mph speed limits in force, repeater signs are used. He raised a sensible question about why we cannot combine repeater speed limit signs and camera warning signs. There are two reasons for that. First, to display both items of information in one sign would require an impractically big sign. Secondly, camera signs are not intended to show exactly where the cameras are. Their purpose is merely to remind people of the need to observe speed limits over a wider area. For those two reasons, a conscious and deliberate decision has been made not to site the repeater speed limit sign and the camera sign on the same post.

Traffic Speed (London and Paris)

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about calculations of traffic speeds in London and in Paris.

Mr. Norris: The most reliable comparison is for day-time off-peak traffic speeds. These are about 31 kilometres per hour in London and 28 kilometres per hour in Paris.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend should note that that is one up for London. Given the positive joie de vivre with which his appointment as Minister responsible for London's transport was greeted, would he like to tell the Evening Standard what it can do with its criticisms of him? Will my hon. Friend do his best to accelerate the trend of people moving to trains and away from cars by introducing road pricing around London's perimeters?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has asked an important question and I commend him on his perspicacity and thinking on the matter. There is a tremendous tendency to knock London. The great British disease is knocking our own achievements. My hon. Friend has elicited the fact that traffic in London is appreciably better than it is, for

example, in Paris. Comparisons with many other, even leading, European cities are impossible because their authorities do not even attempt to record mean average speeds. I agree with my hon. Friend's observation that we must continue to encourage public transport. That is why expenditure on roads in London, as a result of the current public expenditure survey, is about a third of that on public transport. There is a substantial commitment to public transport.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to the sensible suggestion of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for improving traffic in London, does the Minister accept that another good approach would be to authorise the completion of works on the Jubilee line extension? Given that the approval was announced in the autumn statement, are the works to be authorised this year, next year, some time or never?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman, who has always taken a keen interest in the project, knows well the answer to his question, which is that the Jubilee line extension has always been a partnership between the Government and private developers. Negotiations on concluding the agreement are well advanced. As far as I am aware, they are continuing and good progress is being made. The hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be extremely pleased when the project can commence, but that must depend on the signing of the agreement.

Mr. Simon Coombs: What progress has my hon. Friend made in reviewing the success of the red routes scheme in London? What plans does he have to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of providing similar schemes in other large towns and cities in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Norris: The red routes, including the pilot route, have been spectacularly successful. Accidents have been reduced by about 17 per cent., which is about three times the level that has been achieved in the boroughs through which the pilot route passes. Speeds have been improved, but fortunately not greatly so, for private cars. About 8,700 more passengers a week are using the No. 43 bus service on the pilot route. I look forward to our being able to replicate those improvements throughout the priority network.
I am interested that Lothian, a Labour-controlled county in Scotland, is introducing and implementing a concept which it calls green routes, but which in every way is exactly the same as the red routes concept in London, even down to the fact that red paint will be used. Silly politicking has surrounded the red routes debate over previous months, but we have the clearest possible vindication in the general recognition that it is an extremely valuable concept.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am all for a bit of knocking, but there is no need to engage in it when comparing parking in Paris and in London. Parking in central Paris makes parking in London seem positively orderly and restrained.
The Minister did not answer part of the question of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) about road pricing. We understand that the Government will make an announcement about road pricing in London. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when the announcement will be made?

Mr. Norris: I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's propensity for knocking in any circumstances, except to say that in terms of parking he is wrong again. He probably knows that one of the major contributory factors in achieving better road speeds in London is that parking is much better managed in London —this is a general recognition—than in Paris, where recently there has been—

Mr. Banks: That is what I said.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw. Perhaps I was too busy knocking him. I entirely agree with him.
My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that we are undertaking a substantial study of road pricing in London. That is something which the hon. Gentleman may have missed. He will know, if he has read the appropriate answer, that the research is to continue and that it is likely to take at least another year before the information is available. Much of it involves extensive attitudinal and survey research. The Government consider that road pricing is an important component in dealing with urban congestion in future and I shall be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman appraised of progress.

Mr. Mans: On the question of traffic speeds, can my hon. Friend say when the regulations associated with the Traffic Calming Act 1992 are likely to come into force? The Act has been in existence for nine months and many local authorities want to get on with producing schemes based on it, but are prevented from doing so because the regulations have not yet been published.

Mr. Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having been the inspiration behind that Act. He is to be commended for having put it on the statute book. I understand that its provisions will be enacted shortly. It will certainly make a worthwhile contribution to road safety.

British Rail (Redundancies)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the effect on performance of recent proposed redundancies.

Mr. Freeman: This is a commercial matter for the board. The redundancies concern staff positions where, judged by British Rail, loss is not expected to affect performance.

Mr. Janner: Does that answer mean that there were no consultations with the Minister? If not, why not? Surely matters of commercial interest and concern in public bodies such as British Rail should be considered by the Department. Do not they lead to great public expenditure in redundancy pay and other benefits? There should be consultation not only with the Minister concerned, but with the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Freeman: Of course there were consultations between British Rail and the Department of Transport about the need to reduce the work force in line with falling demand. On Network SouthEast alone, during the 12 months to the autumn of 1992 patronage fell by about 8 per cent. Ministers were certainly aware that British Rail was discharging its functions correctly by planning to

reduce services—and therefore employment—at the margin. The precise number involved and the timing of the announcement were rightly matters for British Rail. We do not believe in interfering in matters that are not our direct concern. Until our reforms are in place, the management of British Rail is a matter for its board.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend has assured the House that the redundancies will not affect performance. Is he aware that several thousand of my constituents commute daily on the Kent coast and Kent link lines in filthy, awful and old rolling stock, with unreliable services and little hope of any improvement? Is he further aware that British Rail has proposed cutting the already unacceptably bad service from May and is offering my constituents no hope of any improvement? When will my hon. Friend offer them some hope of improvement for their almost £2,000–a-year season ticket?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] I usually concentrate on listening to the question rather than turning away from Madam Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his very detailed support of the urgent need to improve rail services to his constituency. I repeat my earlier assurance that the 5,000 redundancies principally affect management and will not affect the safety of the railways.
My hon. Friend is aware of the £800 million programme of improvements now being made on the Kent link line, which serves part of Kent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will turn his attention to the Kent coast service as soon as British Rail has completed improvements to the Kent link line.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that already British Rail has removed all staff from a number of stations in my area? If that trend continues, many women will cease to travel by public transport because it will become even more dangerous and difficult for them. When does the hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile his supposed care for the safety of women passengers and the constant and increasing destaffing of British Rail stations?

Mr. Freeman: I share the hon. Lady's concern. However, that matter has nothing to do with the 5,000 redundancies announced by British Rail. The destaffing of stations has been taking place for some time. I firmly believe that with the introduction of franchising, which is a positive idea that will be welcomed by the House when we debate it tomorrow, there will be an improvement in the quality of services, including an improvement in the number of staff serving passengers both on platforms and on trains.

British Rail (Passenger Numbers)

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the current year for the number of passengers using British Rail.

Mr. Freeman: The Government do not set targets for the number of passengers using British Rail, but we wish to see more travellers preferring rail to road for all types of travel, including commuting into London.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that the thousands who commute from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street station each day simply want an efficient, well-run service, and does he believe that franchising will achieve that?

Mr. Freeman: I certainly do, and I am sure that the House looks forward to tomorrow's debate on that very subject. My hon. Friend has long been concerned in particular about resignalling on the Great Eastern line, as others of my hon. Friends have been in relation to resignalling on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. I confirm that, following a review of the interdepartmental financing round settlement for British Rail, resignalling work on both lines will immediately continue.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are eager to use the services provided by British Rail, but that they are consistently being made too expensive by constant fare rises—and that many services are not even accessible because of the continuing closure of railway stations? Far from pursuing privatisation, should not the Government take on board the concept that railways should provide a public service that is available to the majority of the public?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady will know that the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, provide £1,000 million a year in subsidies to British Rail to run socially necessary services. If she believes that fare increases should be moderated or that fares should be reduced, that would mean the taxpayer having to provide more money for subsidies to British Rail and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe that railway passengers should meet as much of the cost of providing the service as possible and that socially necessary services should be subsidised rather than the passenger.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of southern commuters suffer unnecessarily when trains do not run—which I understand is due to cancellations resulting from drivers not turning up for work? Will my hon. Friend therefore look into the trade unions' restrictive practices?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. Certain services are affected by drivers not turning up for work, but I pay tribute to British Rail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should be generous with his support where British Rail has made an effort to improve the quality of services. Under the passengers charter, there has been a real improvement this year on certain Network SouthEast lines. I hope that my hon. Friend will see continued improvement on her line.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware of the report published today by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and of the Health and Safety Executive Commission's report on safety in a privatised railway, which make it clear that there will be serious cuts in passenger services and that they will be less safe due to the lack of adequate financial resources provided by the Government? No doubt that is due to the £3 billion that the Government have taken out of public support since 1983. Does not the Minister think that British Rail and the Secretary of State should switch their attention to that important issue rather than try to explain the confusion

about whether the Government intend to privatise, semi-privatise, or commercialise—all of which are irrelevant to the needs of a good railway system?

Mr. Freeman: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, because we shall have an opportunity to debate the full issue tomorrow. As to public support for the railways, the hon. Gentleman is five years out of date. We increased the public service obligation grant in the past four straight years. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. He claimed that we removed support, whereas he should know that we have increased it in the past four years. As to safety, every time that there is an accident on the railways—and that happens infrequently—the hon. Gentleman immediately says that the Government and British Rail are skimping on safety. He should know that this year, British Rail is spending £200 million on safety —a significant improvement on previous years. Safety is the single most important factor for not only the Government but British Rail.

Networker Trains (Kent)

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the new Networker trains on the north Kent suburban lines.

Mr. MacGregor: There has been a very positive response to the introduction of the new Networker trains.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Naturally, my constituents are delighted with the new trains, which are improving the service. As my right hon. Friend knows, however, the Dartford line—which goes through Erith and Crayford, my constituency—has a long way to go before it provides a good service. Can he give my constituents any hope that his plans for the future of the railways will improve the service for commuters to south-east London?

Mr. MacGregor: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. His question raised two points. The total route modernisation, plus improvements to track, infrastructure and stations, is costing about £800 million. It is the largest investment project to take place on Network SouthEast in recent years, and many of the benefits are still to flow through. For example, new Networker trains are now coming on to the line at the rate of one a week, and all 764 coaches will have been delivered by mid–1994. My hon. Friend can tell his constituents that the number of new trains will continue to increase week by week.
As for the second point, I am sure that franchising will lead to improved passenger services in 1994 and beyond.

Mr. Mackinlay: Who is to blame for the decay of the railway network in the south-east which has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for Chelmsford' (Mr. Burns) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)?

Mr. MacGregor: A number of factors are involved. The fact is, however, that a substantial capital investment is being made. That, combined with all the organisational changes made by British Rail—changes which were very necessary—will produce better services in the future. I also believe that our privatisation proposals, including the


proposal for the franchising of passenger services, will provide even more benefits than those produced by the management changes that have already taken place.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend accept my constituents' congratulations for his part in pushing British Rail to supply fresh rolling stock for the north Kent lines? Will he now turn his attention to the need for new signalling equipment, which would make the service not only of good quality but reliable in future? The need for such equipment is the last major impediment to the breakthrough that north Kent commuters require.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand his point. Of the £800 million that I mentioned, £150 million will be spent on improving track, power and signalling equipment, as well as on extending platforms at 63 stations. My hon. Friend can be assured that work is going ahead on signalling.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work force and management of ABB Transportation Ltd. in York, which built the magnificent modern Networker trains that are used on the north Kent line? Is he aware that the company has invested many millions of pounds in its factory in the expectation of orders from British Rail, but is now running at little more than two thirds of capacity? Further orders could be dealt with; commuters in the south-east need the trains, and people in York need the jobs.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the autumn statement we announced a £150 million leasing programme in the run-up to privatisation. Indeed, only the prospect of privatisation enabled us to do that. It is now for British Rail to decide what use it makes of that programme. Late last week I had a discussion with the chairman and board members of British Rail, and I know that they are considering how they may take full advantage of it. It is for them to decide on the rolling stock to which the programme will be applied.

Trunk Roads (Dorset)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the trunk road building programme for Dorset.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The national trunk road programme contains 12 schemes in Dorset, with a value of more than £90 million. The schemes most recently opened to traffic were dual carriageway improvements between Yellowham hill and Troytown, in December 1991, and between Mere and Wincanton—which serves north Dorset —in July 1992.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the enormous amount of investment that is going into Dorset—particularly that which benefits people trying to travel to and from London.
Dorset has already spent a good deal of money on the A37, but the last link, which goes to Yeovil, must go through Somerset, and therefore receives no investment. Will my hon. Friend consider making it a trunk road, thus greatly improving north-south communication for my constituency?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is always fighting for better roads in south Dorset. I pay tribute to him for that.

I remind him, however, that it is unnecessary for a road to be a trunk road if it is to be greatly improved. On the two north-south routes in Dorset, the A350 and the A354/A37, in recent years four schemes have been approved for transport supplementary grant worth £30 million or more in total. Investment in these routes will continue.

British Rail Maintenance Ltd.

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided on the future ownership of British Rail Maintenance Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: We are still considering the options for BRML depots. We have made it clear that we see benefits in involving the private sector in the heavy repair work currently carried out by BRML.

Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but is he aware of the extreme anxiety among the 1,500 employees of BRML in my constituency, particularly after recent job losses? They fear that the change of ownership could mean further job losses. Could my hon. Friend be a little more precise about when he expects to make a decision? And when he makes it, will he bear in mind both the need to maintain employment in what is an extremely efficiently run works and the need to ensure proper competition so that the works at Eastleigh, and elsewhere, can compete fairly for work on the railways and for other business?

Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He and I have visited the Eastleigh depot. I know that my hon. Friend supports very much the work of that BRML depot. We shall seek to make an announcement as quickly as possible on the future of the four major depots. If the depot were transferred to the private sector, the intention is that it would compete fairly, on a level playing field, with other engineering companies in the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the budgetary requirements of the National Audit Office of the introduction of citizens charters in Government Departments.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission (Sir Peter Hordern): The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 confirms that the National Audit Office's strategy is to take account of and respond positively to the citizens charter initiative.

Mr. Bayley: Is the National Audit Office in a position to make a detatched and independent evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the citizens charter initiative? If not, who is?

Sir Peter Hordern: I very much hope so. The National Audit Office has been making reports about the quality of service for many years. Several reports were given to the Public Accounts Committee only last year. The NAO, is therefore, fully qualified to carry out this initiative.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Chairman also acknowledge that the Public Accounts Commission has been extremely worried about the lack of accountability of some, for want of a better term, quangos? There are grave worries that the next steps agencies could go down the same road and that this time next year we shall find ourselves expressing worries about the new agencies, just as we are expressing worries now about the existing ones.

Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that those points will have been made to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If he is very concerned about it, as he may well be, he in his turn will come before the Commission and ask for help and extra resources. So far, however, the Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed himself fully satisfied with the resources that have been made available to him.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the funding requirements of the National Audit Office of changes in the organisation of the national health service.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 takes account of the need to examine known changes in the machinery of Government, which includes NHS reforms.

Mr. Michael: Can the Chairman assure us that the Commission is aware of the fact that, irrespective of changes of management, of trusts, or anything else, people still regard their local hospital as their hospital? That is certainly true of Llandough hospital in my constituency. My constituents want that hospital to get a fair crack of the whip in terms of finance and contracts. Can the Chairman assure us that there will be a mechanism in place, and the staff, to investigate the way in which all financial arrangements are made and to ensure that money is allocated and accounted for properly in this new climate of ever-increasing numbers of quangos and trusts?

Sir Peter Hordern: Of course it is important that the National Audit Office should have the power and the capacity to look at the reforms and how they are carried out. The NAO has carried out a number of reviews. Only last year there were eight, and seven the year before, which were brought before the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will read what the hon. Gentleman has said, for he has raised a very important point.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Commission will look closely at National Audit Commission reports that refer to specific scandals in the national health service? It is becoming increasingly clear that the opportunities of the so-called internal market are being exploited, not for the good of patients, but for those who want to rip off the taxpayer, because it is seen as an easy mark.

Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot comment generally on what the hon. Lady says. However, I hope that she will put any specific examples to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the National Audit Office that the internal market has led to an increase in the number of patients being treated and a reduction in waiting lists? The internal market is seen as good value for money for patients.

Sir Peter Hordern: I have no doubt that the Comptroller and Auditor General will report on this, as on any other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Clocking On

Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 29 June, Official Report, columns 575–76, what further consideration has been given to removing clocking on and off procedures for all members of the staff in Parliament.

Mr. A. J. Beith: (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): I understand that the position in the Refreshment Department remains unchanged since my answer to the hon. Member on 29 June 1992 and that since that date no representations from trade unions that represent staff in the Refreshment Department have been received requesting abolition of the present time-recording system. Other Departments in the House continue to review the methods for recording the attendance of their staff.

Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Democrats, understand that it is nothing short of a disgrace that cleaners, cooks and bottle washers must clock on when Ministers, Members of Parliament, top civil servants and people in the press gallery do not need to clock on? Can the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of them not get rid of the upstairs downstairs mentality? Instead of waffling on about the classless society, they should do something about the upstairs downstairs mentality.

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. Beith: Time recording is used mainly in those Departments—primarily the Refreshment Department—in which the overtime worked by staff is important to the calculation of the pay they receive. Presumably, that is one of the reasons why the trade unions have accepted that some form of time recording is appropriate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Rather than wait for the trade unions to ask, would it not be a good idea to take a management initiative and consult representatives of the staff to see whether they would prefer to continue with the present system or change it?

Mr. Beith: The matter is under regular discussion between representatives of the staff and management.

Clerks (Judicial Inquiries)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make it his policy to permit the seconding of House of Commons Clerks to the secretariat of judicial inquiries.

Mr. Beith: No approach has been made to the House authorities requesting such secondments and the Commission, therefore, has no reason to consider the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: With the experience of having given one and a half hours of oral evidence to Lord Franks and his colleagues—who, by common consent, produced something of a whitewash—and in view of the fact that every knotty problem relating to arms to Iraq is landing in Lord Justice Scott's in-tray, would it not be better if his committee and the helpers that he must have were partly staff from the Clerks of the House, not only because of their acknowledged expertise, but because, unlike civil servants, they do not need to return to a Government machine which naturally determines their careers and futures? Can we have Clerks who are responsible to the House, rather than civil servants who are ultimately responsible to the Government?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. However, it is not for the Commission to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the support staff used by inquiries. If there is a wider feeling that such a change and such secondments would be appropriate, it would then be for the Commission to consider whether that could be accommodated within the work of the House. I think that the confidence which the hon. Gentleman shows in the independence and expertise of our Clerks will be widely shared in the House.

Children's Centre

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Finance and Services Committee will consider proposals to establish space and provision for a children's centre in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Beith: The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on 11 December and has now held its first meeting. It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the hon. Lady's question, which was tabled prior to the Committee's nomination. Possible options are still being investigated by the authorities of the House and any suitable proposals will then be put to the relevant Committees. When their feasibility, cost and financial implications have been examined, a recommendation will be brought before the Finance and Services Committee, which will give advice to the Commission. However, I shall bring the hon. Lady's continuing interest to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms and the Establishments Office as an indication of the importance placed on the project by several hon. Members.

Mrs. Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think that he does—that 1992 was characterised by many parliamentary questions and answers on the matter being answered by "soon", "may be", "hope so", "when we find the money"and "when we find the space"? May I suggest that he recommends to the Finance and Services Committee that it makes a new year resolution that during 1993 space will be found for children in this large Palace in which we sit? Space should be found for well-equipped facilities for mothers with small babies and for the many children who visit the Palace. It is disgraceful that in the 1990s we have no such facilities for families and for visitors' and Members' children, grandchildren and so on. Will the Committee make that new year resolution?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady's supplementary question goes wider than the creche proposal which was, indeed, the

subject of many questions during 1992. It extends to whether we could go beyond the present facilities of the Families Room. Those matters ought to be considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Commission has asked the Committee to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Sittings of the House

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for the time of sittings of the House in the light of the legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary year.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Discussions are continuing through the usual channels to seek to identify an acceptable basis on which the House can take decisions on the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, including decisions on the timing of implementation of any changes which may be agreed.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Lord President of the Council accept that the implication of the statement that he made last year when the report was produced was that the new regime would be in operation from the beginning of 1993 so that we could work some logical hours this year and change the system of decades for a better one? Have the Government not implemented the new proposals merely because small technical difficulties remain or do they not intend to introduce them until after they have allowed the House to play funny games as a punishment for rebels, as opposed to an advancement of democracy?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation is wide of the mark. I assure him that no one has a greater vested interest—if I may put it that way—in making progress on the proposals than the Leader of the House, in view of the amount of time that he is expected to put in here.

Mr. Madel: On the progress of the Maastricht Bill, would it not help us all if we stuck to Tuesdays and Wednesdays until the proceedings are completed? That would make our lives reasonably reasonable.

Mr. Newton: As I said at business questions just before the recess when a similar point was put to me, I cannot give an immediate undertaking of that nature. However, I am conscious of the number of people who would find that arrangement convenient.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President accept that while we are well aware that he has taken some small steps, which are most welcome on both sides of the House, towards adopting the recommendations made in the report, we are anxious to see further moves by agreement between all parties, particularly because it is undoubtedly the case that our present hours and circumstances of operation are likely to put off the many women whom we wish to see in the House in every party?

Mr. Newton: That, I know, was a point which was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and others who were involved in the report. I welcome what the hon. Lady has said. As she knows—I state this simply as a matter of


fact and not in any sense as a criticism—she is currently considering her response to a letter that I wrote after outlining some thoughts to her earlier.

Mr. Marlow: As the Maastricht treaty is dead until the Danes change their minds in another referendum, and as legal expertise takes the view that they do not have the legally binding opt-outs for which they asked, would it not be in everyone's interest to delay further strenuous consideration of the Maastricht Bill in the House until the Danes have said yes?

Mr. Newton: I know and understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter and I hope that he will not think me unduly aggressive if I simply say no.

Chamber (Layout)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the physical layout of the Chamber of the House on the effectiveness of its procedures.

Mr. Newton: No such assessment has been made.

Mr. Banks: That is a pity because, given that Members of Parliament are getting reasonable office facilities, surely it is time that we examined the possibility of a new debating chamber in this House. The layout of this Chamber resembles that of a pokey, second division football ground, so it is not surprising that we have outbreaks of crowd disturbance from time to time. In the latter part of the 20th century, is not it time for us to have a proper Chamber, with allocated places, desks to work from, individual microphones and electronic voting, or is this place to remain a parliamentary museum?

Mr. Newton: I think that I may say on behalf of the House of Commons Commission with your assent, Madam Speaker and that of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that the Commission has no proposals for rebuilding the Chamber. As for electronic voting, I should miss the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the House.

Question Time (London)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for a Question Time for London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I have no proposals for a separate Question Time for London, but hon. Members can, of course, ask questions of relevance to London to any of the Departments of state.

Mr. Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to look to his sense of fairness on such matters within the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has 17 Members of Parliament and a whole Question Time, Wales has 36—or perhaps 32—and a whole Question Time and Scotland has 71 Members and one hour of questions? Is that not somewhat unfair to the people of London, who have 84 Members of Parliament and who are the heart and the father of this nation?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the constitutional position of London can be equated quite with that of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I am also mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Patronage

Secretary, in an unusual intervention in our affairs, asked, "What about East Anglia?"—a view with which I can sympathise. My hon. Friend's record in asking questions, not only in London but on Ealing, is second to none.

Guillotine

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to change the operation of the guillotine.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to alter the arrangements for allocation of time motions governed by Standing Order No. 81. However, the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, in the report to which I referred earlier, recommended the routine timetabling of all Government Bills, except those taken through Committee on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us if and how he proposes to use the guillotine on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Would it not be appalling to use that on such an awful piece of legislation? In the longer term, should time-limited speeches not be available as a constitutional alternative?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on such matters, but I am not sure that they will be shared in all parts of the House.

Points of Order (Reform)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for the reform of the points of order procedure.

Mr. Newton: Points of order, by their very nature, do not arise in a regular or predictable way and I see little scope for a rigid, regulated procedure. It is for the Chair to determine whether points of order are genuine and to give rulings as appropriate.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most often heard words in this House are, "This is not a matter for me"? Would it not be a blessing to Madam Speaker if the House took action to remove from her shoulders the burden of tedium caused by the most abused procedure in the House?

Mr. Newton: I note that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is in his place and I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) on becoming my right hon. Friends. He will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, but I am sure that the Procedure Committee would wish to respond were Madam Speaker to suggest that she saw a need for such consideration.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that interference with the right of Members of Parliament to raise issues on points of order—issues that are often substantial—and the removal of the Speaker's right to determine such issues, making them subject to political pressure, would be opposed by many hon. Members? Points of order are a time-honoured and useful way to raise important issues and they should not be interfered with.

Mr. Newton: Yes, despite my occasional or perhaps even more than occasional disagreement with the hon.


Gentleman, he makes some very good points. Everyone would agree that, although we recognise and deplore abuse when it clearly occurs, we should need to be careful before taking too many rights away from too many people.

Finance and Services Committee

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to nominate the Finance and Services Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on Friday 11 December and had its first meeting on Wednesday 16 December.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the efficiency of the House should be much improved with the formation of that Committee? Will he hasten its progress in bringing about those improvements?

Mr. Newton: The Committee, at its first meeting, considered a full programme of work in which improving the efficiency of the financial control over affairs in the House was very much a key element.

MV Braer (Oil Pollution)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement. MV Braer, a fully loaded Liberian registered tanker, drifted on to rocks at Garths Ness in Quendale bay, south Shetland, and was confirmed aground at 11.19 am on Tuesday 5 January.
Prompt action by the rescue services enabled the captain and crew, 34 persons in all, to be rescued before the ship grounded. I would like to pay tribute to the skill and courage of the helicopter crews and the professionalism of our coastguards in preventing loss of life, despite the violent storm conditions. Those who risked their lives in an attempt to get a line aboard when the drift of the ship unexpectedly provided extra time deserve particular praise.
Very sadly, it did not prove possible to avert a major oil pollution incident in this ecologically sensitive area. This is one of the biggest spills we have experienced in this country and the consequences for the people of Shetland and their livelihoods, and for the islands' marine life and birds and their habitats, are potentially very serious. I am sure that the whole House will be deeply concerned at this accident, and will sympathise greatly with the people of the Shetland Islands who are being affected by it.
A great deal of oil has escaped from the wreck. I had hoped to say that much is still retained in the tanks, but I regret to say that, in the past few minutes, I have heard that, owing to today's extreme weather conditions, very large additional quantities of oil are now escaping from the ship; it is too early to say how much or to assess its implications. The oil concerned is a light crude, a quarter or more of which will evaporate as it is released.
Rapid deployment of my Department's marine pollution control unit aircraft enabled dispersant to be sprayed throughout daylight hours on 6 January covering most of the oil on the sea surface. The continuing strong winds and big waves have aided dispersion and made spraying unnecessary on a number of days, while keeping the bulk of the spill near the ship. Nevertheless, the extent of the pollution so far, until the latest information, which I have just given the House, was available, though serious, is less than might have been feared and this will make, or would have made, the clean-up operations more manageable.
The Shetland Islands council and the marine pollution control unit have established a joint response centre to co-ordinate clean-up action in accordance with the national contingency plan. I saw this for myself on Friday, and I would like to congratulate all those concerned on the magnificent way in which they have risen to the occasion, particularly the local people and the voluntary organisations who have given unstintingly of their time, expertise and energy.
Inevitably, important questions arise about the events leading up to the accident. I announced that a full investigation by the marine accident investigation branch was being started immediately. I will, of course, publish the chief inspector's report to me in full. The investigation is covering the causes of the accident, the action taken to prevent it, the action taken after the event, the seaworthiness of the vessel, the competence of the crew and the safety of navigation. A parallel investigation is

being carried out by the Liberian authorities. At the same time, I announced that I would be considering, following my visit, whether further inquiry action was necessary. This accident raises wider questions about tanker movements around our coasts, as well as many other issues. I have therefore decided to commission an additional inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. Due consideration should be given to the international and economic implications of any new measures.
The inquiry will be held in public except to the extent that the chairman feels any matters need to be heard in private. I am delighted to say that Lord Donaldson agreed to be chairman of the inquiry.
Clearly, dealing with the incident will be costly and there will be economic loss to individuals as well. The Government strongly uphold the polluter-pays principle. The United Kingdom is party to international conventions that provide for compensation following oil pollution incidents.
Under the 1969 civil liability convention, the shipowner is strictly liable for damage caused following an oil spill. In the case of the Braer, some £50 million will be available from the insurer and the international oil pollution compensation fund.
Compensation under the conventions is paid for costs incurred, including clean-up costs and the costs of reasonable restoration. Compensation is also available for economic loss. It can thus cover loss of income by local businesses affected by the consequences of the spill. I announced in Shetland on Friday the decision of the ship's protection and indemnity club and the international oil pollution compensation fund to establish a claims office in Lerwick to advise on and receive compensation claims arising from the incident. The Government are discussing with the director of the international fund ways of securing the earliest possible payment of compensation, particularly in cases of economic hardship.
This is a very serious pollution incident. Dealing with the consequences will not be quick or easy. I repeat that I am sure that the whole House will share my concern about this accident and will want to join me in expressing great sympathy with the people of the Shetland Islands who are being affected by it. I will keep the House informed of developments.

Mr. John Prescott: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on this terrible maritime environmental disaster and express the sympathy and concern that is felt by all Members of the House for those affected by the sinking of the Braer. We are thankful that, despite the devastating effect on the environment and the appalling consequences for wildlife, miraculously no one was killed.
May I place on record our admiration for the courage and skill shown by those involved in the salvage and rescue operations, especially those helicopter pilots who braved extremely hazardous weather conditions to winch the Braer's crew to safety. The lives of many seafarers are owed to the courage and tenacity of those helicopter pilots.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the widening of the inquiry into the Braer disaster and its separation into two parts. The House will welcome the fact, albeit with some suspicion, that Liberia has at least promised to hold an inquiry. But under what


circumstances will that inquiry be held? Has the Secretary of State requested that it be held in Britain under a British judge, as has occurred on a number of other occasions? Does he agree that it would be unacceptable for Britain to be left to face the consequences of this major pollution tragedy and for Britain alone to carry the heavy burden of the necessary inquiry costs, which will run into many millions of pounds, without any charge on the Liberian Government?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the practice of some countries of prostituting their flags for a few pieces of silver, allowing shipowners to put out to sea second-rate vessels with second-rate crews, has contributed to a loss rate three or four times greater than that of traditional maritime countries and the death of 300 seafarers with the loss of 24 tankers in the past few years? Those deaths have attracted far less publicity than the images of oil slicks on beaches, no doubt because blood washes away quicker than oil.
In recognising the principle that the polluter should pay, will the Secretary of State now insist that those countries that sell their flags for short-term gain should bear the long-term costs of their irresponsibility? Does he now accept that the loss of more than 1,000 ships from the British flag—many to flags of convenience countries and many of them tankers—has meant the loss of experienced British crews and the deterioration of vessel standards and has contributed to these terrible tragedies? Year after year we have warned the Secretary of State of such tragedies, and how they will result in the loss of the British maritime fleet. Does the Secretary of State agree that the merchant navy of an island nation such as Britain should be able to restore its fleet and not have to witness its own elimination?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the full public inquiry must concede the public's right to know and to contribute to the debate that is necessary to force changes to reduce the possibility of such tragedies happening off our coasts in future? Does he accept that all who wish to give evidence to the inquiry must be allowed to do so?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether all contingency plans for such tragedies were subjected to an environmental impact assessment of the effects on the environment—human and wildlife—and particularly on the food chain? Will the inquiry consider the role of the International Maritime Organisation and its conventions in securing the necessary measures to guarantee the standard of vessels, competency of crews and safety of routes? Will the Government consider a separate European convention—which I discussed with the European Commissioner 10 months ago—laying down standards and enforcing them in respect of all vessels entering British waters and ports?
Will the inquiry consider the delays that have occurred between the onset of danger and the notification of the emergency services due to pressures on captains to inform the shipowners first? As that has been the case in other tragedies around the British coast, why have the Government failed to sign the IMO salvage operations convention of 1989?
We should not delay action on any such issues until the result of the inquiry is known or the European legislation is enacted. Therefore, will the Secretary of State make it

abundantly clear to all oil companies and carriers of hazardous materials that it is totally unacceptable for them to take dangerous routes that may be cheaper and quicker in commercial terms, but more dangerous and damaging to the community? Such policies are totally unacceptable to the House.
Is it not time that Britain recognised the inadequacy of relying on quick improvements through IMO, which is dominated by the flags of convenience countries that are reluctant to agree to good international practices? Will the inquiry consider the possibility of establishing a European convention on the carriage of hazardous cargoes and protection against marine pollution—possibly under the present international maritime conventions—that will unilaterally impose all the necessary policies to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring in future?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the main burden of such incidents is usually carried by the polluted, not the polluter? Does he know that the owners of the Braer will receive more compensation for the ship than it is worth on the open market? Does he know that those who use flags of convenience will continue to pocket their immoral earnings, while communities such as those in the Shetlands will have their lives disrupted, their environment destroyed and their fishing industry paralysed and will face greater uncertainties about the compensation available? The rest of Britain will be affected by the pollution once it works its way through the food chain. The British taxpayer will have to pay for someone else's cynical irresponsibility, which is unacceptable. It is time for change.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for his support for the two inquiries that I have set up, and I am glad that he agrees that they should be separate. I felt that it was right to announce immediately the marine accident investigation branch inquiry, which is a highly professional technical inquiry and should proceed in the normal way. It was important that it should start its work and interview the crews immediately. I think that the hon. Gentleman recognised that important point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Liberian inquiry. As is proper in such circumstances, that inquiry is being held in parallel, and is currently taking place in the Shetland Islands. The inspector for the Liberian inquiry has been working with the inspectors of the marine accident investigation branch and interviewing the crews since Wednesday in the Shetland Islands.
I have one important point to make in relation to what the hon. Gentleman said about Liberia. Given that the hon. Gentleman referred to higher losses among ships registered in such areas, it is important to stress that the Liberian loss ratio is only half the world average. It is also important to establish that the Liberian authorities carry out thorough inquiries in cases of this sort.
It is not possible at this stage to make any allegations or accusations about the vessel or crew—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree—because they must be a matter for the MAIB inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the implications of flagging out. He will know that, whatever has happened to the United Kingdom fleet, enormous numbers of vessels from other countries are travelling in international waters all the time; hence the importance of looking at these matters at the IMO level.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the full public inquiry will lead to changes. It will be for the chairman of that inquiry to decide what recommendations to make, and I will be happy, if either he or the MAIB inquiry feels it necessary to make interim or urgent recommendations, to have them followed up.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all who wished to give evidence would be allowed to do so. They certainly will. As I have said, we intend the inquiry to be held in public except when the chairman comes to the view that there are good reasons for not doing so. He will then explain those reasons.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about contingency planning for dealing with clearing up. During my visit on Friday I asked all concerned whether they felt that any more could be done and whether they had any suggestions to make to me. They told me that co-operation was excellent, that the contingency plans for clearing up had been implemented quickly, and that everything possible was being done in that respect. The fact that we got the unit in quickly, as well as the Dakotas and all the other equipment, shows that the planning worked. Clearly the inquiry will look into this aspect as well.
The hon. Gentleman referred to separate discussions in the European Community. As the House knows, during our presidency of the last six months of last year we took up and pushed through a proposal for a new directive on ships carrying dangerous goods and on reporting procedures which had been under discussion already for about three years. We gave priority to getting the directive through, and I am glad to say that we got it through. It affects oil tankers.
We are one of the member states taking the lead in all these matters. We also gave strong support to encouraging the Commission to produce proposals for maritime safety in general. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been pressing at both IMO and European Community level on ferry safety matters. Although that is not strictly relevant, it does show the extent to which we are trying to drive forward higher standards in the IMO and the Community. We expect the Commission's communication on maritime safety within the next few weeks. I believe that the Community has a real role to play in ensuring that international standards are applied and enforced in a determined and consistent way. We have urged, and will continue to urge, other Governments to participate wholeheartedly in these efforts. I believe that our efforts during our presidency to push these matters have already borne some fruit, and we shall go on pressing.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the inquiry would look at some of the delays. I do not want to comment on that today because it is clearly a matter for the inquiry itself, but it will be for the MAIB inquiry, in the first instance, to examine the matter because it encompasses the causes and all other aspects of the accident. I will certainly make arrangements to ensure that anything that the MAIB inquiry reveals is made available to the chairman of the wider inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the salvage operations convention. We hope to be able to ratify it as soon as we can find a legislative opportunity; it requires primary legislation.

Mr. Prescott: That is terrible.

Mr. MacGregor: The salvage operations convention was only recently agreed. We are looking for an early opportunity to implement it, but a number of other countries must also ratify it so that there are sufficient numbers before it comes into force. [Interruption.] I have already stressed that we are looking for an early opportunity to implement it and I note that the hon. Gentleman will support that.
The second and relevant point is that the salvage operations convention is already being applied commercially in practice in this case. I have looked into that thoroughly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not need the convention to take all the appropriate measures relevant to this accident.

Mr. Prescott: That is terrible.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not terrible. The convention is already being properly applied. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to show that he has slightly lost his sense of perspective. If the convention is being applied, as I am assured it is, we can at least be satisfied that anything that could have happened under the convention will happen. We shall certainly endeavour to legislate at an early opportunity.
My next point in relation to the International Maritime Organisation is important. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, many of these issues have to be negotiated at international level if they are to be effective. That is why it is important in so many cases to try to reach agreement in the IMO. I as much as the hon. Gentleman regret the occasional delays, but the measures will be effective in practice. I suspect, although I do not wish to prejudge the matter, that some of the recommendations of the wider inquiry will require pursuit at IMO level.
At the weekend the hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had not taken action similar to that taken in the United States. He said that he regretted that we had not acted along the lines of the Oil Pollution Act introduced in the United States following the Exxon Valdez disaster. That Act was passed by Congress against the wishes of the American Administration, and I believe that it has considerable defects. I am certain that nothing that occurred in this accident would have been affected or improved in any way by the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of the United States. That demonstrates the importance of trying to reach agreement at IMO level. As I have said, we shall actively pursue any issues arising from the two inquiries that I have announced.

Mr. Robert Adley: In unreservedly welcoming my right hon. Friend's action, may I ask whether he agrees that it is tragic that it takes a tragedy before he can set up the inquiries that he has announced? Is he aware that in March 1979 the Committee considering the Merchant Shipping Bill accepted a new clause of mine that would have placed liability for pollution of the sort that is occurring in the Shetlands on the cargo owner rather than on the carrier? The thinking behind the new clause was to prevent oil companies from chartering rotten ships with cheap crews.
Can that matter be looked at by the inquiry? The new clause was a victim of the demise of the then Callaghan Government and the noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff told me that he was under enormous pressure from the oil companies to remove it. Will my right hon. Friend stand


firm against pressure from the oil interests, and will he ask the inquiry to look into the links between oil companies and detergent manufacturers?

Mr. MacGregor: It will be for the chairman of the inquiry to look at any aspect he wishes. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the inquiry's terms have been widely drawn and that it will be open to anyone to give evidence or to make recommendations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) regrets that he is not yet able to be here. The first flight from Shetland left at 10.50 this morning. I spoke to him when he was at Edinburgh airport and he told me that he hoped to be in the House by 4.30. Hon. Members are aware of the weather in the Shetlands and will, I hope, understand the reason for his delay.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in paying tribute to all those who have successfully worked to save lives and who continue to work to mitigate the damage to the islands and their communities? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. As I saw when I was in Shetland on Friday, he has been working round the clock in his constituency to support his constituents at this hour of their greatest need.
Can the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that the inquiry will be, as legally defined, a proper public inquiry, entirely independent of the Department of Transport, so that the terms of reference, in addition to those announced, can include other matters of concern to the communities affected if they so wish and, above all, so that the reason why warnings given in years gone by were not heeded? The warnings included those from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland about the need for surveillance and surveillance mechanisms and for different routing arrangements. A truly independent inquiry will ensure that there will be no doubt that, after this most public of disasters, the communities of Shetland, which are among the most economically important communities in the kingdom, will know that, just as the damage has been public, so the inquiry and its conclusions will be public and that nothing will be private except with the consent of their elected representatives.

Mr. MacGregor: I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I fully understand why he is not able to be present. I also met him on Friday and I know that he has been assisduous in pursuing all aspects. I am sure that he will agree that the Department and the marine pollution control unit have been working closely with the Shetland Islands council and doing everything possible in this tragic situation.
As the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Southwark (Mr. Hughes) will know, the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is independent and I have made it clear that its findings will be made public and that its report to me will be published in full.
As to the wider inquiry, what is taken in public and what is taken in private will be a matter for the chairman of the inquiry. Because he is out of the country, in the time available, I have not yet been able to discuss all the details with the chairman, and that includes matters such as

assessors, which he will want to have. I hope to be doing that shortly. However, I have already made it clear that it is the intention that the inquiry will be held in public except where the chairman—not the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—feels that it should be taken in private and then he will give reasons for that. I think that this is the right way to approach the matter and the best way to consider issues such as surveillance mechanisms and whether they would have had any effect in this case.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement of the inquiry by Lord Donaldson will be widely welcomed not only in the maritime community but beyond it? Will he confirm that one of the issues that the chairman will consider is the permanent provision around our shores of dedicated, ocean-going salvage tugs of sufficient size? Similar arrangements are made in countries such as France and South Africa.

Mr. MacGregor: That would be a matter at which the chairman of the inquiry could look within the terms of reference and given the conditions laid down in relation to economic and international impacts, obligations and interests.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Let me begin by expressing my concern about what has happpened and my appreciation of everything that has been done since the accident.
I welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's decision to set up two separate inquiries, and especially the undertaking that, if anything comes up quickly, action will be taken. However, there may be conflict between his inquiry and the Liberian inquiry. If they come to different conclusions, will not this affect the question of how quickly compensation can be paid? Would it not be much better if the Government took on themselves the capacity to pay compensation now and for them to argue with the insurers after the event as the amount of compensation might not match what was necessary?
Can the right hon. Gentleman allay one fear—that the dispersants used are poisonous to people? What can he tell us about that?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that we strongly believe in the polluter-pays principle. I have outlined the steps that we are taking, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly have something further to say on that matter. It was decided after consideration that the inquiries should take place separately but that the two should co-operate with each other.
I know that there has been a great deal of interest in, and concern about, dispersants. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Department uses only dispersants that have been carefully tested to ensure that the toxicity of the dispersant when combined with oil is no greater than the toxicity of the original oil. The decisions to spray the dispersant were taken in conjunction with a considerable number of people, who were consulted and who gave their agreement.
The chief executive of the Shetland Islands council reassured the people of the Shetlands in a public notice that he put out on 10 January that


The composition of the dispersants used has been made known to the medical authorities and it is considered that, if used by correct methods, then risk to the general public is so low as not to be measurable.
He added:
In fact, what people have been suffering from is the effects of oil in the air and the use of dispersants would reduce the problem.
I know that there are arguments on both sides in relation to dispersants. That is why they are used only when on balance they have advantage in dispersing the oil. That is why dispersant has been used on only certain occasions in this instance. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was able to observe on Saturday the way in which the Dakotas were carrying out dispersal work. I believe that every effort has been made to keep the dispersant on the sea. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about the effect of it in the way in which I have just sought to do.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a tragedy on a similar scale might have happened off the south Devon coast shortly before Christmas, when a Chinese oil tanker was being towed across the channel by a Russian tug? In the gale the oil tanker broke loose and hit the rocks on the Devon coast. As the tanks were not full, only engine oil went on to the rocks. It has since been dispersed.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the possibility of ship traffic control, like air traffic control for aeroplanes, is considered? Such a system would enable there to be a round-Britain network. It would be possible to know the position of all ships by the use of computer screens.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities will not be charged a penny piece when accidents of this type take place, and that local taxpayers will not be expected to foot the Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's point about local authorities and taxpayers is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friends who are involved with local authorities.
We have much tighter control over ships that are coming into our ports than over those that are operating on the basis of international rights of passage under international law. One of the effects of the steps that we took recently within the European Community, to which I have referred, is that we shall be able to have much greater knowledge and information about dangerous goods that are being transported, where they are on ships and what they contain. Wider considerations of what might be done are a matter for the inquiry.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the years his Department has received numerous warnings from Scottish local authorities and from hon. Members of the possibility of just such a disaster on the north-west coast of Scotland? Why was a study such as that to be made by Lord Donaldson not commissioned a long time ago, which possibly could have prevented the disaster?

Mr. MacGregor: Steps have been taken through the International Maritime Organisation. A large part of the seas around Shetland, including the area where the tanker was eventually beached, was declared in 1991 to be an "area to be avoided" as a result of British efforts in the IMO's assembly. There is no evidence—this is a matter for

the MAIB inquiry—that the tanker was in the area to be avoided before its engines failed. The tragedy is that following engine failure it moved into that area.
Many steps have been taken over the years, but I believe it right in a case such as this to ascertain what further steps we can take. The House should be under no illusions about some of the difficulties. As I have said, there is the view that the American oil pollution legislation, following the Exxon Valdez disaster, will not prove to be very effective in practice. It might have been better to operate through the IMO, as the American Administration itself wished to do. That is always the inevitable constraint. It is right to consider thoroughly the wider circumstances surrounding the accident to determine whether we, together with other nations that have similarly suffered, can bring further pressures to bear through the IMO.

Mr. David Harris: I represent a constituency that suffered badly from the Torrey Canyon disaster many years ago—a not dissimilar accident. I welcome the wider inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend and I extend my sympathy to the Shetland islanders.
If I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, the wider inquiry will cover pollution risks in the United Kingdom as a whole, not just the results of the disaster in Shetland. May I press my right hon. Friend to widen the inquiry even further to consider the whole question of safety at sea? I am president of the sea safety group, which is concerned about collisions at sea, especially those between large merchant vessels and fishing vessels. Would not it be timely to widen the inquiry in that way?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The inquiry will cover a wide area, so I should be reluctant to widen it much more as that might mean further delay. I think that it is right to focus on pollution from merchant shipping, which is the result of the accident. However, I share my hon. Friend's interest and concern. We are looking forward to the European Commission's proposals on maritime safety, which I hope will be published shortly. We can then decide how to follow up those proposals.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that as the neighbouring Member of Parliament to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whose constituency has been so adversely affected, and as my constituency is surrounded on three sides by coastal waters and is in peril of suffering a similar accident, I have a particular interest in the matter. Does he accept that his decision to lean heavily against the American solution will dismay a number of people, who feel that the American legislature showed greater wisdom than did the outgoing President in this matter? Although it is necessary to have acceptable international solutions operated through the IMO where that is possible, if it is not possible we must operate higher standards in the waters around our coasts—not only United Kingdom waters, but the routes to, from and by the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I mentioned the doubts about the American legislation simply to show that I have heard reservations and criticisms of it and that it is as yet untested in practice. I was simply showing that there are no easy solutions to


the problem. I do not wish to go further than that because such issues are matters for the inquiry, its chairman and all those who wish to give evidence.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I warmly welcome the inquiry under Lord Donaldson. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inquiry should bear in mind the fact that, in all the marine losses in 1991, 82 per cent. of the vessels were more than 15 years old? The Aegean Sea, which went aground on the Spanish coast in November, was 19 years old; the Braer was 17 years old. Is not it obvious that there is a link between age and safety? Is it not high time that we considered an age limit on ships that wish to trade on an international or global basis?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I am somewhat circumspect today because we do not know whether the condition of the Braer was a material factor. It would be right for the MAIB inquiry to consider that point thoroughly and then to reach conclusions. It is clear that the wider inquiry will wish to consider the general issue raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I have 14 years' experience of the oil industry at Milford Haven. Many people in that town have said about the Braer and many other such incidents that they are disasters waiting to happen. During that 14 years, I have seen ships coming into Milford Haven that have been poorly maintained, poorly crewed and with poor officers.
I refer to a telephone call that I received from a constituent whose son is a master mariner, who left the company chaired by Lord Sterling because he was sick and tired of having to give his crew members written instructions that had to be checked against a dictionary so that the orders could be translated. That is the kind of thing that is happening on the high seas.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take unilateral action, as the United States appears to be doing, particularly in relation to double-skinned hulls. At least that would make those who charter vessels realise that something must be done and shipowners appreciate that a real investment must be made in their large tankers. The only answer will be unilateral action. We require proper regulations that are properly enforced.

Mr. MacGregor: I have not ruled out unilateral action. I was pointing to the fact that, given the nature of international shipping and the huge number of ships from other countries that move through international waters, the more that agreement can be reached at international level the better. I was simply making the case that some unilateral actions may not be fully effective and may occasionally be unproductive. Those are aspects that the inquiry will have to weigh up.
The hon. Gentleman may know that the IMO has already agreed new rules for double hulls, that double hulls for all new ships will be introduced in 1995, and that there will be an insistence on double hulls for older ships over a progressive period. The IMO has taken steps on that front.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I add my voice to those who share in the tragedy that has affected the Shetlands and islanders there. I welcome the extension of

the inquiry to the whole United Kingdom coastline and the proposed new investment in extending coastguard surveillance to my constituency, on the Fairlight cliffs. Will the inquiry consider the special problems and hazards of shipping in the English channel?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that the inquiry will be concerned with the United Kingdom coastline, which clearly means the whole United Kingdom coastline.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: Why is it that in the past week I received a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and from other voluntary organisations asking for money and why, in this instance, have the Government not given an undertaking that all the costs of those voluntary organisations will be met by the Government? After all, after the fire at Windsor castle, the Government were quick enough to state that all the costs of that disaster would be met. Why have they not done the same on this occasion?

Mr. MacGregor: I did not refer to that because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be doing so in his statement.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend instruct the United Kingdom representative at the International Maritime Organisation to press for the raising of standards of training for masters and crew and of the standards of maintenance of vessels up to those expected of British masters and crew and shipowners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the event of serious maritime accidents anywhere in the world, an inquiry should be conducted by an inspector appointed by the IMO itself and not by the Government of the country under whose flag the ship sails?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to reflect on my hon. Friend's final point, but I thought that it was right to establish an inquiry straightaway so that we could get on with the matter and come to a United Kingdom view. As to my hon. Friend's first point on training, the Government have been pressing that matter in the IMO.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The Secretary of State continually referred to the incident as an accident and used the word "disaster" only in relation to the Exxon Valdez. Is it the Government's view that it was only an accident? I am sure that Scotland, the whole of the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world regard it as a disaster. Miners know historically that legislation sometimes results from disasters; but the price paid by the people and the environment is too high. It may be that we should look to our laurels and see whether we can offset the effects of such accidents or disasters. Is the Braer incident a disaster in the Government's eyes?

Mr. MacGregor: On Friday, when I visited the area, I described the incident as a disaster and a tragedy, as I have done on a number of occasions. It was also an accident. It is clearly a major issue about which we should all be very concerned; that, too, I have made clear on several occasions.
On the other hand, I emphasise all the effort that is being made to deal with the incident, to ensure that the clean-up takes place as quickly as possible and to ensure that all the potential further effects are avoided. I know that the Shetland islanders feel that that is very much in


their interests. I should also emphasise all the work that is being done to restore the coastline, and every other aspect of the Shetlands, as quickly as possible.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting up the Donaldson inquiry. Does he accept that few people in these islands, wherever they live and whatever areas they represent—and many Members come from coastal areas—do not regret the decline of the British merchant fleet and the concurrent increase in flags of convenience shipping? Will he assure us that Lord Donaldson will be able to examine all aspects of the operation of flag of convenience ships?

Mr. MacGregor: That will certainly be an aspect of the inquiry, and Lord Donaldson will be able to make whatever recommendations he wishes to make. As I have said, the terms of reference are
To advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.
Consideration must, of course, take into account the international and economic implications of any new measures. But that will be a matter for Lord Donaldson to consider, and for us to consider subsequently.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)? Given the current appalling weather conditions, why can tankers still go through the closed waters of the Minch? Why has nothing been done about that, even now?
May I also return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)? Can it possibly be true that the wireless operator on the Braer had an imperfect command of the English language?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, steps were taken in relation to those waters. The arrangements, however, were agreed under the United Nations convention on the law of the seas, and we must abide by them and seek changes by the same means. That is the most effective way of securing change.
As for the question of the wireless operator, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on press reports and similar matters. The issue is one of many that the marine accident investigation branch is now considering.

Mr. Tim Devlin: We are now part of the world's largest single market, with which every country in the world wishes to trade. Is not the European Community the best forum in which to dictate the terms on which we will allow goods to be carried into and out of the Community? Should we not seek a European package providing, for instance, MOT tests for ships and the use of a single language on board ships? Should not that be done as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: We all have obligations under the IMO and the law of the seas convention, which includes some 136 countries at present—the number fluctuates. Given the international nature of shipping, that is the arena in which many such matters must, if possible, be decided.
I have endeavoured to bring about further action in the European Community on a number of shipping fronts. I am happy to say that we recently managed to agree one

aspect of dangerous goods at sea, as I said at the last Council meeting. I know how difficult it can be to reach agreement in a Community of 12. I hope that we shall be able to make progress in the Community when we have the Commission's report on maritime safety. A wider debate on shipping is also going on in the Community.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) both raised the question of the Minch. Surely the Secretary of State recognises the massive local and national concern about the continuing dangers posed to the Western Isles and the west coast of Scotland—especially the highlands—by the passage of large tankers carrying crude oil through those waters.
The route west of the Hebrides is not mandatory; it is only advisory. While this welcome inquiry is under way, cannot the Government at least take interim steps to require oil-carrying tankers to have proper pilotage if they are using the route through the Minch, until Lord Donaldson is able to report and recommend?

Mr. MacGregor: In this instance we are talking about ships going through British waters according to international law. If we are to get those laws into a form whereby they can be compulsorily applied, it is important to reach agreement through the International Maritime Organisation. That is what we should endeavour to do. It will of course be for Lord Donaldson, if he wishes to do so, to make interim recommendations, which we could then consider.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Is there anything to stop the Secretary of State for Transport immediately ordering tankers to sail at least 50 miles to the west of the Hebrides? The argument has always been that there would be international repercussions. The argument has never been that it is not open to the Government to do that. Will the Secretary of State therefore clarify his answer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm the answer that he appeared to give, that the inquiry under Lord Donaldson will be able to take account of all aspects of flags of convenience shipping and of the effect on the environment, as well as of the disastrous rundown of our merchant navy that has taken place under this Government? Will he immediately act upon the House of Lords Select Committee's report and increase the number of inspectors so that more than one in four of foreign flag ships visiting British ports are inspected and do not just go on their merry way? Will he take action immediately, without waiting for any report? If he does not do so, the Government's culpability in allowing the flag of convenience scandal to fester in this country during the last 13 years will be compounded.

Mr. MacGregor: On the last point, there is no need for me to take further action, because we are already taking it. On the hon. Gentleman's point about one in four ships visiting our ports being inspected, that is the international target, but we are more than exceeding that target. We are meeting our own target of 30 per cent. Therefore, 30 per cent. of ships are being inspected under our own port state control. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that that is a positive response.
As for the hon. Member's second point, I do not think that it would be for the inquiry to go wider into questions


of the British fleet as such. However, issues such as flags of convenience, in so far as the chairman regards them as relevant to any further measures
appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping",
would be relevant. They could involve, if he so wished, crewing.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if we are to abide by our international obligations, we cannot take unilateral action of that kind 50 miles from our coastline. I am advised that the Oil Pollution Act would not have enabled the American Administration to take the action for which the hon. Gentleman asks in relation to their tragic accident. We cannot do so, either.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Secretary of State agree that we should regard this recent disaster as a nail in the coffin of the farce of flags of convenience? Should we not ask ourselves who these flags are convenient for? They are surely not convenient for the Shetland islanders. Are they designed only to protect well-heeled shipowners and oil companies that wish to exploit cheap labour, thus ignoring the needs of our environment? Is it not time for the Government to take a lead in the International Maritime Organisation and to end this farce once and for all?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government have taken a lead in the IMO in relation to a number of matters, including, as I have already said, crewing. It would be wise to await the outcome of the inquiry and to establish whether in this case crewing was or was not a factor. I certainly do not have any evidence either way on that point at the moment, and it is a matter that I have asked the MAIB inquiry to consider.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is there any truth in the allegations made in the Observer at the weekend that the Government have repeatedly resisted attempts to keep ships carrying oil and other dangerous cargoes away from our shores? If that is so, the Government stand condemned.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not see that report; and I am not absolutely clear what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the fact that there will be an inquiry into the shipping routes of large crude oil carriers. The Minister should turn his attention to the Government's response to the effects of the spill. Long after the headlines have gone and long after the clean-up, people will have moved away from the Shetlands.
I think that I am right in saying that there has not been a spill on such a scale of this sort of crude oil in such weather conditions. That has led to the oil dispersing in the water column, being ingested by marine animals and, therefore, being transmitted through the whole ecology of the Shetlands. It affects fishing. Perhaps the Minister could say whether any research is being undertaken into the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I can assure him that this is not a case of simply waiting for the immediate impact and effect to be over. We shall be closely monitoring the impact and effect all the way through. Certainly the inquiry will examine all the aspects. The particular point that the hon. Gentleman raised will be covered in the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is about to make.

Shetlands (MV Braer Incident)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to make a statement about the Shetland tanker incident, covering those aspects of the matter that fall within my departmental responsibility: in particular, the areas of health, agriculture, fisheries and the environment.
The Government have been especially concerned to ensure that the local community's health is protected. The Director of Public Health in Shetland, in conjunction with the Islands council, has given local guidance on the steps which should be taken to avoid exposure to the oil, and advice has been made available to general practitioners about how they might best respond to patients who present with symptoms or who have worked in areas of high exposure.
I arranged for the Director of the Environmental Health (Scotland) Unit to travel to Shetland on 7 January. The unit has considerable expertise on environmental health issues, and the director has been working closely with the health board and the Islands council. Expert advice has also been made available on toxicological aspects. Regular environmental monitoring of total hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is being carried out, and the levels observed so far do not indicate any long-term hazard to health, although there have been some cases of eye, nose or throat irritation and feeling of nausea, particularly involving people working outside in close proximity to the incident. But, clearly, the situation will be carefully monitored over the coming months. A health survey has already been announced, involving the islanders living in the affected area.
I visited Shetland on Saturday, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. During the course of the visit we had useful discussions with representatives from the agriculture, crofting, fishing and fish-farming industries, in addition to a range of environmental interests. We also met members and officials of the Shetland Islands council. The efficiency which they have demonstrated in this incident has been considerable, and I pay tribute to the way in which their staff have risen to the challenge in difficult circumstances.
My officials and the local environmental health officers have been particularly concerned to avoid any risk of oil contamination to food. Action has been taken to condemn crops of vegetables in the south of the island, and independent monitoring arrangements have been established, with the co-operation of the farmers and fishermen, to ensure that there is no contamination of milk supplies or of fish entering the market.
We are also concerned about the health and welfare of farmed animals. Cattle in the affected areas are being housed inside with supplies of clean water and feed. Local vets are monitoring the impact on sheep which have been grazing on areas affected by oil spray. Officials of the marine laboratory are monitoring the impact on the fish farms that have been affected by oil in the water. Farmers have also been asked not to send sheep for slaughter for the time being.
The fishing and fish-farming industries are of fundamental importance to the economy of Shetland, and it is clearly essential that we do everything that is necessary to safeguard and protect their long-term futures.
The key immediate issue is that of confidence in the industry's products. My Department has, therefore, already instituted arrangements for the sampling and testing of sea fish landed in Shetland. We also announced on Friday an exclusion zone under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 within which the taking of fish is, in the meantime, prohibited.
The spillage is causing serious damage to wildlife and their habitats. It also threatens to despoil coastal landscapes as well as some inland areas which are under threat from windblown oil. Quendale bay is already heavily polluted. There are a further nine sites of special scientific interest currently at risk. Further sites could be reached by oil within days if the present trend continues.
Staff of Scottish Natural Heritage are advising on the natural heritage implications of the clean-up operation as part of the joint response committee, and are also playing a key role in co-ordinating voluntary effort and liaising with local groups.
It is too early to predict what the final impact on wildlife and their habitats will be. However, I fear that we can expect over time several thousand mortalities, in total, of different species. The operations staff and volunteers are doing all that they can to minimise that total.
The adverse ecological consequences are cause for widespread concern. I have therefore instructed my departments to establish an ecological steering group with membership which will include representatives of the Shetland isles, environmental specialists drawn from Scottish Natural Heritage and elsewhere, and those involved operationally in handling the oil spillage. Its immediate task will be to develop urgently the best strategies, both in the short term and in the longer term, for dealing with the implications of the spillage for the natural environment of the Shetland isles.
We should also draw more general lessons for the future from what has happened. Accordingly, I have agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the group should also initiate and oversee a special study of the ecological effects of the incident and how best to handle them should a similar event occur at some time in the future. It will report back to Government on this wider consideration in due course. The membership of and remit of the steering group will also reflect the wider consideration and appropriate support will be made available to it. The study will build on the foundations of the extensive Government-funded investigations of fish and birds that are already carried out in the area.
As regards the cost of all the work now being undertaken and the costs incurred by islanders and local businesses, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government strongly uphold the polluter-pays principle.
There is every reason to believe that the resources available for compensation from the international fund will be sufficient to meet all eligible claims. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Government are pressing the international oil pollution compensation fund to facilitate early possible payments, particularly in cases of economic hardship. I welcome the immediate payment on account made by the insurers to Shetland Islands council in this regard. There is, however, understandable concern in Shetland about the cash flow problems which may face businesses, particularly the farming, fishing and fish-farming industries, in the period before claims are settled in full. In view of the significance of these industries to the


Shetland economy, my Department is proposing to make resources available through a special bridging fund to help them with particular economic hardship pending the settlement of compensation claims.
Arrangements for administering the bridging fund will be announced as soon as possible following urgent consultations already in hand between my Department, the Shetland Islands council and other interested parties.
Once the extent of the damage is more fully known, Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will work with Shetland Islands council to assess the impact on the island's economy. I shall consider carefully any recommendations made to me as a result of this assessment.
I am also following up welcome offers of help from the European Commission and will make further details available as soon as they are agreed.
Damaging and distressing though the circumstances of this serious environmental accident are, the response of the people of Shetland and of the wider community, nationally and internationally, has been impressive. I am satisfied that all the organisations, voluntary bodies and individuals involved in the efforts to limit and repair the damage are working well together, with a shared commitment to succeed.
My hon. Friend the Scottish Minister responsible for the environment was prevented today by bad weather from paying his second visit to Shetland since the incident, but he hopes to get there tomorrow and he and I will pay further visits as and when it is helpful to do so. It is our purpose to ensure that we do all that we can to help Shetland and the people of Shetland to restore quickly and effectively their beautiful environment and their way of life.

Mr. Henry McLeish: While I welcome the suggestion made today that we shall have a wider inquiry rather than a narrow departmental one, and while I welcome the Secretary of State's assurances about health aspects and about reviving the Shetland economy, Opposition Members remain concerned about the complacency and confusion which have surrounded initial responses from the Government. That is reflected in the anxieties that have been expressed to several Opposition Members.
May I also take this opportunity to praise, as the Secretary of State has done, the efforts which have been made by all involved—statutory services, local council people and the voluntary sector—to tackle the devastating crisis which now faces the Shetland Islands.
As I said, it is difficult to extend the same praise to Scottish Office Ministers—[Interruption.] That is an important matter which has to be mentioned on the Floor of the House because concerns have been expressed to us.
In the brief time available I must mention three issues on which the Secretary of State commented. I am afraid that his comments on the extent of compensation were equivocal. The people of Shetland will be disappointed that the Secretary of State has not stated clearly that no person on Shetland will be at a disadvantage in the immediate future because of the consequences of the tanker spillage. Compensation is crucial, not only to the well-being of many islanders, but to reassure them that the Government are with them and to build confidence during

a difficult time for the community in the north of Scotland. We agree that the polluter should pay, which is equally important, but surely to goodness, even with the set-up that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement, islanders will be worried that the amount of money to be made available will not cover the tremendous costs involved as the story unfolds during the months and years ahead.
I note that the Secretary of State said that there is every reason "to believe" that the resources available will meet all eligible claims, but Shetland islanders want something more specific. I want the Secretary of State to tell the House this afternoon that no Shetland islander whose economic well-being is affected will be worse off. It would be appalling if we had to wait until the due processes of law had taken place to know the terms of any compensation.
The saga has been a cruel irony in that the Shetland isles and the islanders are a model of the way in which an authority should handle complex oil-related issues. Through no fault of their own a tanker has gone down, in astonishing circumstances, and they are being left to foot the bill. My plea is that this afternoon the Secretary of State will assure them that they will not be out of pocket.
The second issue that has been mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends concerns the routing of tankers and the Secretary of State for Scotland must have a role to play in that. Concerns have been expressed about the Minch. There are valuable and sensitive environmental areas around the entire British coastline. While I accept that the International Maritime Organisation and the European Community should review tanker routes, would it not be appropriate and in the interests of Scotland for the Secretary of State to remove tankers from sensitive areas at this stage, pending the outcome of the review?
We have talked about the economic well-being of the Shetlanders and the damage to wildlife, the ecology and environmentally sensitive habitats, but there is also growing concern about the possible impact on health of hydrocarbons in the air and I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about monitoring that impact. I sincerely hope that, during his visits and those of his hon. Friends, they will do everything possible to minimise the impact. The community is particularly fearful of the impact on children and, as parliamentarians, we must talk seriously about that issue.
Finally, we must deal with the question of spraying. I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about the possibility of further damage being done to the environment by adding toxicity to the problems created by hydrocarbons spewing from the tanker, but I want his reassurance that that toxicity is being monitored. There has been speculation in the press about the damage being done by spraying. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal with that issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Why was the hon. Gentleman not here to listen to the Secretary of State for Transport?

Mr. McLeish: I was about to apologise for my absence. No discourtesy was intended to the Secretary of State for Transport or to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston


upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Unfortunately, because Glasgow was snowbound, I could not get here to listen to the first 20 minutes of the exchanges.
Finally, the statement went far enough on certain issues, but we must have reassurances on compensation, routing, the use of toxic chemicals and health. The people of Shetland are demanding those reassurances and it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to provide them.

Mr. Lang: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about complacency and confusion fall below the actual record of events. I suggest that perhaps he, too, should visit Shetland where he will see that all those involved, including the Scottish Office, which has sent more than 20 officials, other Departments' officials, voluntary bodies, local government and other organisations are working together efficiently and with complete dedication to repair the damage that has been caused in Shetland and to minimise the risk. The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were completely misplaced.
On the question of the immediate disadvantages faced by the people of Shetland, it was precisely with the interests of those people in mind and the difficulties that can arise as a result of economic hardship and cashflow problems in the short term—before people are able to secure settlement of insurance claims—that I decided to establish the bridging fund that I announced today. An office has already been established in Shetland to manage that compensation fund and the insurers have already advanced £200,000 to the Shetland Islands council to meet immediate, interim and short-term problems on account. The Shetlands Islands council has also made funds available to the agricultural sector. The European Community, through Commissioner Paleokrassas, has already made emergency aid available and it is having discussions with my Department about possible further aid. When one takes into account all those factors, one can see that resources are being brought to bear as needed and that procedures for clearing up this damaging environmental incident will not be in any way inhibited by lack of funds.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for Transport dealt with the routing of tankers in his statement. I understand why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was delayed by travel problems and was unable to get to the Chamber in time to hear that statement.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that health is an immensely important aspect of the incident. I underline the importance that we attach to the careful monitoring that is now taking place. That monitoring involves a number of individuals with considerable expertise and access to high-quality advice on toxicological matters. That monitoring will continue for some considerable time and clear advice will be given to the people of Shetland as to how to respond to events.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport also dealt with dispersants. It is worth repeating that today's statement from the director of the Shetland Islands council environmental services, the director of marine pollution control, the director of the Scottish environmental health unit and the director of public health for Shetland indicated that the dispersant, if used according to correct methods, meant that the risk to the public is
so low as not to be measurable".

That helps to put the issue into perspective.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, vital though it is, it is not just with the immediate devastation that the Government must concern themselves? Will he give the House the commitment that long after the television crews have gone, he and his Department will still be working with the Shetland islanders and their leaders to ensure the return to the quality of life to which those people are accustomed and which they deserve?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right to say that long-term issues, as well as the short-term immediate problems, will be of considerable importance. We will not lose sight of them and the ecological study group that I announced today will be concerned to monitor matters for some considerable time.

Mr. James Wallace: I preface my remarks by apologising to the House for not being here earlier. Perhaps I should explain that the weather conditions were atrocious and that I got here as early as I could.
I thank the Secretary of State for Transport for his statement, but I should like to address my remarks to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that he has announced a bridging fund, which seems to be along the lines of that which we discussed on Saturday. Obviously, if he is able to provide any further detail on that fund today that would be welcome. He will be aware of the immediate need faced by a number of salmon farmers who would have undertaken a scheduled harvesting of their salmon this week. Substantial cashflow problems could arise. If the fund is not sufficient to meet those needs, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider it so that the response from Government is adequate to ensure people's livelihoods?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm to the House that the response that he saw on Saturday from the farmers and particularly from the seafood industries, which were ahead of the Government in announcing a voluntary ban, shows their determination to ensure that Shetland will maintain its reputation for the high quality of the produce that it puts on the market? That will be extremely important in the long term.

Mr. Lang: I understand, as does the rest of the House, why the hon. Gentleman was unable to be here earlier. I am happy to pay tribute to the commitment that he has shown to the interests of his constituents in all aspects of this matter.
As I said earlier, we are involved in urgent consultations with Shetland Islands council and others over the precise details of the bridging fund. I will make further details available as soon as I possibly can, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible at the moment to spell out in more detail the way in which it will operate.
I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the actions of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and others in relation to the need to maintain confidence in the quality of the island's produce. I imposed an exclusion order on the area most affected around Sumburgh last week to maintain confidence in their produce, particularly fish and farmed fish. I welcome the


support of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, which took an extremely responsible posture in supporting me. I hope that confidence in its products will be quickly restored.

Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who represent seats at the other end of the United Kingdom from Shetland and whose constituents rely on farming, fishing and tourism for their livelihood feel for the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for the damage that they have suffered. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been on the Shetland Islands this weekend and who also represents Kent, would share that view.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): indicated assent.

Mr. Gale: As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, may I say how much we appreciate the voluntary work that has been done to help to mitigate this disaster, in particular the work done by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others. I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) that my right hon. Friend should try to ensure that those voluntary bodies, which have spent considerable sums of their funds in assisting in the clean-up operation, are able to seek recompense from those liable—not in order that they may make a profit, but so that they may continue to help with the long-term work of restitution that will be necessary.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. I also join him in congratulating and complimenting the voluntary organisations on the dedicated work that they are doing and on the way in which they are working together.
My hon. Friend may like to know that a number of voluntary groups working on the islands, including the World Wild Fund for Nature, the Shetland Bird Club, the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the SSPCA, are getting together to form the Shetland Conservation Consortium. Funding has been provided immediately by the Scottish Office under the special grants environmental programme and by Scottish National Heritage to help that new organisation. SNH is also empowered to give further funding to voluntary bodies as needed.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State will be aware that I am parliamentary consultant to the National and Local Government Officers Association and in that context I thank him for his kind remarks about the prompt and efficient action taken by local government officers on Shetland. Can he give an assurance that those officials and in particular the environmental health officer will receive the fullest possible support from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, or whichever officials of his Department arc appropriate, to deal with this situation and to give the best possible advice and support to the community of Shetland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I repeat that the officials and the

councillors of Shetland Islands council, both groups of whom I met on Saturday, are working very effectively to deal with this difficult incident. They are getting as much co-operation and assistance as is possible from officials in my Department, in particular the director of the environmental health unit, Dr. Forbes, has been to the islands, as has the chief scientist of SNH. Contacts are continuing at all levels between those groups. Some 20 or more officials from my Department are on the islands fulfilling various tasks and I intend to ensure that that co-operation is maintained for as long as is necessary.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern felt at the lack of priority and lack of urgency shown by the Government in their response to this catastrophe? For example, why did it take more than four days for the Secretary of State to visit the scene of the disaster? Why has he made only a qualified statement about compensation? Why does not the Secretary of State copy Holland's example, where the Government pay victims compensation immediately and then sue the polluter to recover the money?

Mr. Lang: On the lack of urgency, the hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that the Scottish Office Minister responsible for the environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), went to Shetland the day after the incident, as did the Minister for Aviation and Shipping from the Department of Transport. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have visited Shetland and spent a considerable time talking to a wide range of interest groups involved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would have been in Shetland again today for his second visit but for the weather. So there is no lack of urgency or commitment on the part of the Government, as is reflected in the statements by my right hon. Friend and I today.
On compensation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman upholds the fundamental principle that the polluter pays. In the meantime, to deal with short-term economic hardship, I have announced the setting up of a bridging fund to help to meet the anxieties that he identified.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: May I welcome the positive aspects of the Secretary of State's announcement and endorse the praise for the Shetland islanders and their response to the disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was right about the crucial nature of the compensation to Shetland islanders in the meantime. Is the Secretary of State aware of the pathetic sight that he presents to the House, compared with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who guaranteed millions of pounds for the repair of Windsor castle? The Secretary of State for Scotland had come forward with £200,000 for the Scottish people. What support will he give the Shetland islanders in pursuing their legal claims against the polluter? What guarantee can he give that, while that legal operation is taking place, no Shetland islander will go bankrupt or out of business because of the disaster?

Mr. Lang: The incident with which the hon. Gentleman compares the circumstances of the Shetland Islands is not comparable. Windsor castle is a Crown property for which the Government have administrative responsibility and


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made that position clear at once. We are concerned about the longer term compensation, legal liability and consequential loss that affect a large number of people following this serious incident. I have tried to identify how the Government can best help to meet areas that are not immediately covered by compensation aspects, in that they will take some time to come through. That is why we have set up a bridging fund to deal with the short-term problems and economic hardship that can arise.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State will recognise that the disaster is not simply a local problem for the Shetlands but is of considerable importance to the whole of Scotland because of the importance of tourism and the quality of our food and maritime products. That is one of the reasons why a speedy response is necessary. We must ensure that, wherever possible, money does not constrain protective measures that can prevent extensive pollution, nor does it encourage anybody to break an embargo that is essential to ensure that the quality of products is re-established.
Will the Secretary of State take up the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), that the Government must make it clear that nobody will be denied cash when they need it and that, in the long run, full compensation will be paid?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the purpose of the bridging fund that I have announced, the emergency help offered by the European Community, the fund operated by the Shetland Islands council, and the advance payment made by the insurers is to ensure that such short-term difficulties do not arise.
On the quality of food, I agree that it is important to restore confidence in the quality of Shetland's produce. That is one of the reasons why I imposed the exclusion zone and why fish landed is being tested daily and will continue to be monitored in the long term. It is important to restore confidence in the quality of Shetland's produce as quickly as possible.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Why have I received an appealing letter in the past week from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the disaster in the Shetland islands if what the Secretary of State says about compensation being made available to the voluntary organisations is right? Why does not he give a commitment to the House, as the Secretary of State for National Heritage did on Windsor castle, and say that he will underwrite all costs involved in the disaster?

Mr. Lang: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read what I have said today. He will then understand that I am meeting the area of need that has been identified to help people in the short term until they can secure full compensation, as I anticipate they will be able to do, from the insurers.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I apologise for being late. I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that transport difficulties in Scotland are pronounced today.
Is there a limit to the bridging fund proposed by the Secretary of State? Does he understand Opposition Members' concern that no one should be in cash flow difficulties? No one disputes the principle that the polluter

should pay. None the less, we are concerned that no one in the Shetland Islands conducting a business should find himself in straitened circumstances because of delays in compensation. We have very much in mind the fact that the Amoco Cadiz disaster took 14 years to settle.
Does the Scottish Office have a view on rights of passage? In the light of this disaster and bearing in mind the fact that only 20 per cent. of tankers are following the recommended route to the west of the Western Isles, does the Scottish Office agree that there must be a firm new look at rights of passage? Does the Scottish Office intend to have an input to provide some security for the sea passageways?

Mr. Lang: As I explained in my statement, the details of the bridging fund are still the subject of consultation and will be announced as soon as possible. The navigational matters were largely covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I wish to ensure that all Scottish interests are fully reflected in the outcome of any consideration of those matters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like the Secretary of State for the Environment who is sitting next to him, the Secretary of State for Scotland had a fruitful visit to the royal botanical gardens in Edinburgh recently. Will he therefore take into account the view of the director, Dr. David Ingram, that there is not only a short-term problem on which great attention and expertise is being deployed, but a long-term—probably 10 to 20 years—problem of maritime algae and marine photosynthesis? It so happens that the deputy director is one of the world's leading experts on such matters. Could a fund be set up urgently or Government money be devoted to a long-term project, which this unique tragedy requires? A long-term scientific study must be funded from somewhere.

Mr. Lang: We must wait until the details of the ecological steering group's remit is fully set up before we can be precise about the specific long-term matters that it will undertake. It may develop long-term strategies, including overseeing appropriate research studies to monitor the impact on and subsequent recovery of the environment and it will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and me. On funding, we shall ensure that measures on which we embark subsequent to that report or in the light of advice from the steering group will be adequately funded.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State respond to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that tankers be required to be piloted through the Minch straits? The Secretary of State for Transport has already said that the Government do not have powers to ban traffic entirely. Will he clarify whether they have powers to require that tankers be piloted? Will he investigate that possibility as an interim measure?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter does not fall within my responsibility but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside me and has heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State will realise that the Opposition echo his compliments


to the Shetland Islands council. I hope that he also understands that we applaud it for its work outside times of crisis because he has attempted to cut its budgets and staffing over a long period. There is therefore much cynicism about the vagueness with which he has answered questions on funding and compensation. The only sum that has been mentioned so far is £200,000 for the bridging fund. He has spoken of compensation and support for the voluntary organisations.
How much money is there in the fund? How much money will be made available? Will he let us know later on paper, or even state today, the level of compensation that will be given to the people of the islands? Will they be given complete compensation if money is not supplied by the international fund? What level of reinstatement can be expected? Will the fund ultimately turn out to be something to take the heat out of the issue, not enough to deal with the real problem of recompensing the people and reinstating their lifestyle?

Mr. Lang: The issue of reinstatement is not for the bridging fund, but for the insurers. It relates to the compensation that individuals will seek under the polluter-pays principle. The bridging fund is designed to help, in the short term, people suffering the sort of hardship that could arise from a delay in the settlement of their claims. The £200,000 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the advance payment made by the insurers to help immediate claims to be met in the short term. I cannot yet put a firm figure on the bridging fund, but anticipate that, if there is a need for several million pounds, we shall seek to meet it.

Points of Order

5 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have been more than generous to me this afternoon and I am a little shy about raising a point of order. However, I was wondering whether, in view of the alleged Iraqi incursion into Kuwait, the statements from Baghdad about the need for a dialogue among

America, Britain, France and Iraq—which some of us strongly support—and as the operation is not conducted under the umbrella of the United Nations—Dr. Boutros Ghali has made it clear that it has nothing to do—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been enormously generous this afternoon to all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and if he will be good enough to come to his point of order, I shall deal with it immediately.

Mr. Dalyell: My point of order is simply whether you, Madam Speaker, have received a request from the Government to make a statement on those grave and urgent matters.

Madam Speaker: I have had no approach from the Government for a statement today.

Mr. Gary Waller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will recall, on the day before the Christmas recess our proceedings were interrupted by a demonstration. I make absolutely no criticism of the action that you found it necessary to take on that occasion when you adjourned the sitting. However, is not it a fact that our hard-won democratic freedoms are threatened when hon. Members use the power of numbers to bring proceedings to a halt and your authority in the House is ignored?

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, during the Christmas Adjournment debate, a number of hon. Members, with extreme selfishness, set about preventing the discussion of several important matters on the ground that a subject of their own choosing was not to be raised. I trust that I shall have the active support of hon. Members in all quarters of the House in my determination that such an outrage—which is what I considered it to be—against the long tradition of freedom of speech in the House should never be repeated. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was one of the hon. Members who lost their Adjournment debates that day. Those hon. Members were successful in the ballot and I shall see to it that they will soon have the chance to raise their Adjournment debates on days other than Thursday, on which I usually grant such debates. I have written to all the hon. Members involved about the matter.

Orders of the Day — Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill is clearly a major piece of legislation and the amendment paper lists a large number of new clauses and amendments. You have kindly selected five new clauses, including Government new clause 6, and nine groups of amendments, including Government amendments. It is now 5.3 pm and clearly it is open to hon. Members to oppose the business motion at 10 pm—indeed, it is expected that the debate may run to midnight.
In view of the serious nature of the Bill arid the widespread controversy that it has aroused, especially in relation to clauses 9 and 10—about 1,000 black and Asian people are today lobbying the House to protest against the provisions—if progress is not expeditious, to avoid a vote against the business motion would you, Madam Speaker, he prepared to consider encouraging the Government to halt the business at 10 pm? The Government could return with the remainder of the business at a later date. Will you consider whether we could terminate today's business at 10 pm? Could you encourage the Government to complete the proceedings another day? In view of the serious nature of the Bill and the time already taken up this afternoon on extremely serious matters—about which I make no complaint—will you consider whether it would be proper for us to consider the Bill on Report and complete Third Reading today?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, as Speaker, I have to strike a balance between how long a statement should take and the remainder of the business on the Order Paper. What the hon. Gentleman has said is a matter for the House to consider, not a matter for me at this stage.

New Clause 6

PROTECTION OF CLAIMANTS FROM DEPORTATION, ETC.

'. During the period beginning when a person makes a claim for asylum and ending when the Secretary of State gives him notice of the decision on the claim, he may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time, and trust, in response to the plea of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I shall be able to do so expeditiously.
I am very pleased to introduce the clause, which follows an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Standing Committee. The new clause provides that a person who has made a claim for asylum may not be removed from, or required to leave, this country until he has been notified of the decision on that claim. It complements the provisions already contained in schedule 2 of the Bill, which affords the same protection

during the period when an asylum appeal is pending. The new clause does not represent any change of policy or practice on our part; but in response to hon. Members who spoke in Committee, may I say that it puts into statutory form the practice which exists. I can assure the House that nobody who claims asylum will be removed from this country until a decision has been taken on his or her claim.
I am pleased to be able to move the new clause because it emphasises that the Bill does not in any way weaken the Government's commitment to meeting their international obligations towards the protection of genuine refugees. We accept our obligations under the Geneva convention and intend to honour them in full. The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to discharge those obligations as efficiently and speedily as possible, first, in order to ensure that genuine refugees are not returned to countries where they may face persecution and, secondly, to curb misuse of the asylum process by people who are not genuine refugees.
Our aim is to establish a system that works in everyone's interests. When applications are made, the key element will continue to be the full and fair examination of individual applications, arriving quickly and efficiently at the right solution for each of the cases we consider. It is not our intention to bundle applicants out of the country before they have had a proper opportunity to make their case. New clause 6 makes that unequivocally clear.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that everybody would be deeply upset if people were bundled out of the country, but when dealing with manifestly bogus asylum seekers, particularly those who make trouble while they are seeking asylum—like the wretched individual who made bogus claims about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—will my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary ensure that they are kicked out of the country with utmost speed?

Mr. Clarke: The Bill is introducing new procedures to deal with such cases, which are normally described in legal terms as manifestly unfounded claims for asylum. We shall discuss that matter under later new clauses and amendments. It is extremely important—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: No—the hon. Gentleman must let me deal with one intervention at a time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is extremely important that bogus claimants are turned round speedily and sent back, first, because they are not entitled to be here and, secondly, because they get in the way of the full hearing of genuine applications which new clause 6 is partly designed to ensure.
I cannot go into the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned except to say that, although it has received a great deal of publicity, I assure him that it was being dealt with in the ordinary way well before the recent newspaper allegations. The gentleman in question had been told in August last year that he had no right to remain in this country and he had been asked to take steps to leave. This will continue to be dealt with as an ordinary case regardless of the man's involvement in matters of public controversy concerning my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He will be dealt with on the same basis as


everyone else: allowed to stay, if there are compelling reasons why he should be, or removed if he has no reason to be here and has abused the immigration process.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that when a person arrives at an air or sea port in this country and wishes to seek political asylum he will not be prevented or restrained in any way from leaving the aircraft or ship in order to approach an immigration officer, and that no airline will be allowed—because of the way the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 operates—to prevent such people from approaching immigration officers while in transit at any airport in the country?
Furthermore, will the Secretary of State investigate past cases when it has been alleged that people have been prevented from leaving aircraft at Heathrow because they were likely to seek political asylum here?

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Gentleman has sought to raise this matter before. I think that I am right in saying that a later new clause or amendment will enable us to discuss the matter again. I assure the hon. Gentleman that anyone who has set foot on these shores and who makes a claim for asylum will have the application considered in the way in which the Bill envisages the process. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any immigration officer has ever been involved in removing someone without the application first being properly considered. This new clause ensures that no one will be removed until his application has been determined.
I know that there have been allegations about airline staff and others and one such case at least is still under investigation. The Government have made it absolutely clear that if someone reaches these shores and applies for asylum the application will be properly considered. No one will be removed without his case having been properly determined in the light of the rules.
It is important to have proper methods of dealing with these matters because of the pressure that we are under with the number of new asylum applications in modern circumstances, following the sudden and dramatic increase in popularity of asylum applications a few years ago. We now know that the total number of new asylum applications received in 1992 was 24,500. That means that the previous year's total was nearly halved, largely, we think, as a result of new screening arrangements introduced in November 1991 to detect and deter multiple applications.
We took 35,000 decisions in 1992—six times the number we were able to take in 1991. Leaving aside applications that were refused because of failure to attend interviews or to provide information, just over 5 per cent. of the decisions actually recognised refugee status and granted political asylum. We have not changed the criteria; we continue to apply the same criteria as always in deciding these cases: the criteria of the 1951 United Nations convention.
The simple fact is that very few of the applications that we now receive are from refugees as the international community has always defined them. Nineteen out of 20 of those who apply for refugee status turn out on

investigation not to come within the terms of the Geneva convention. That is why we need a system that deals properly and quickly with these applications.

Mr. Marlow: So 5 per cent. of these claims are valid claims, and the other 95 per cent., by definition, are not. What proportion of those 95 per cent. have been removed from the country or are in the process of being removed?

Mr. Clarke: Comparatively few at the moment, as my hon. Friend knows and fears. That is another underlying purpose of the Bill, since 19 out of 20 applications eventually prove not to be well founded under the 1951 convention. Many such applications have been made by people arriving in this country as a means of getting around other immigration controls. We must have a good and expeditious system of removing clearly unfounded cases so that we can deal more promptly with genuine ones. Delays in dealing with such cases lead to many people eventually being given leave to remain even though they have no right to be here when they first entered the country. That is why we must press on with the Bill.
We still have a backlog of more than 49,000 undecided applications and new applications continue to arrive at five times the rate they did just over four years ago—another reason why we need this Bill.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Secretary of State concede that one reason why the number of applications being dealt with has increased is that the Department has finally taken the advice offered by the Labour party two years ago and employed adequate numbers of staff to deal with the applications received? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being somewhat disingenous when he quotes figures from four years ago. Comparing last year's backlog with the current year's backlog shows that the latter has not only stopped growing but is diminishing. In other words, the two reasons why the Secretary of State's predecessor introduced the Bill have now been eliminated.

Mr. Clarke: We have increased the number of staff because there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people applying for asylum. It is the hon. Gentleman who is being disingenuous by claiming that this is entirely the result of the Labour party's advice. The fact that the Labour party agrees with the Government that it is right to increase the number of staff is a happy event. We should not have this backlog and it is important to get down to ensuring that we can deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications so that we can then deal expeditiously with the rest. It is not right that people who turn out eventually to have no claim to be here should be able to rely on the process being spun out for several years so that they can make claims for leave to remain because of circumstances that have arisen since they landed.
The need remains for a system that is resilient, responsive and fair, concentrating efforts and resources on the issues that really matter. I am convinced that the Bill provides the framework for such a system. It contains time limits and safeguards to prevent abuse—I am sure that we will discuss them later—which are part of a balanced package to ensure that the significant new rights and benefits that we are giving asylum seekers are not exploited be people who are not bona fide applicants. I hope that the Bill's improvements to the position of genuine asylum


seekers will be properly recognised in our debates today. The Government have tabled a number of amendments to clarify the Bill's intentions and to respond to some—usually misplaced but understandable—concerns expressed in Committee. New clause 6 is the first of those Government amendments and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: The new clause was tabled by the Government because of matters raised by Opposition Members in Committee and we welcome it. I shall deal briefly with it before moving on to some of the broader issues that the Secretary of State mentioned in what seemed at times a short rerun of the Second Reading debate.
New clause 6 affords protection to applicants for the time between a claim being made and notice of a decision, so that they cannot be removed once they have made a claim until notice of decision is given. The prohibition on removal of an applicant does not apply only for the time between the making of the application and the decision; it also applies pending an appeal—I should be grateful for confirmation of that.
Some people have asked whether the protection pending appeal applies also to the period between notice of the decision being given and an appeal being lodged. In other words, there may be a period when an appeal has not yet been lodged but notice of decision has been given. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm that the prohibition on removal applies also to this period. The issue has recently come up in certain cases before the courts.
Of course no one supports bogus applications, but the issue between us has concerned the method of determining whether a bogus application has been made and whether that method is fair. Because of the serious consequences that can arise, it is essential that the procedures for determining bogus applications are fair. Many people who arrive here are in appalling personal circumstances and are fleeing from tremendous distress and civil war. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the procedure for deciding whether they are entitled to stay here is fair and gives proper and adequate access to people to make their case.
The Secretary of State implies that there are two types of claims those that are obviously well founded and those that are bogus. The term bogus does not merely cover claims that are made in bad faith, which is what the word often suggests, but claims which, technically, may not comply with the terns of the United Nations convention. It is critical to realise that that convention gives refugee status only to those who personally fear persecution. Someone fleeing from civil war or from a zone in which there is great risk may be in danger, but he is not being personally persecuted. The UN convention covers the first case but not the second. It does not cover the broader definition of refugee, which is used by many countries to denote the circumstances of a person who is in danger but is not being personally persecuted by the regime in his country.
Before claims are judged to be groundless it is important carefully to examine the basis upon which the judgment is made. It is clear from reading the debates in Committee that the real dispute between us is over the process of determination. The Opposition believe that at many points in that process the appeal procedure is too

quick and the ability of people to make a case is foreshortened. That may give rise to injustice against those who have genuine claims for asylum.
It is false to regard all claims that do not fall within the terms of the United Nations convention as claims in bad faith, because they are not. Many such claims are made in good faith but do not fit strictly into the United Nations convention. In such cases it is especially important that the determination and the appeals procedure are fair. We oppose the Bill not just because the removal of the right of appeal in immigration cases is wholly wrong and unfair, but because the Bill will not apply in the way that it should the rules of natural justice, which must be applied to such cases.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I can give the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) affirmative answers to all his questions. The Bill provides that someone should not he removed from this country pending the determination of an appeal. As I have explained, the new clause makes statutory our policy that no one will be required to he removed from this country until his application is determined. The combined effect will be to cover the period between a decision being taken and a possible appeal being filed. The time limit for appeals will be allowed to run before anyone is required to leave this country.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement that those who do not have a well-founded claim for asylum should be removed. It is difficult to understand how the Opposition can reconcile their assertion that people who do not have a well-founded claim should be removed with their amendments, some of which would make it extremely difficult to remove anybody or to defend ourselves against ill-founded claims. The key matter upon which the House must agree is a procedure which, with reasonable expedition and complete fairness, can determine whether someone falls within the terms of the convention or should be required to leave the country.
I agree with some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. Matters are not always in black and white: not all political refugees are obviously political; not all bogus refugees are obviously bogus. Many people have no sensible claim at all and have to be removed quickly. Some are plainly political refugees because they have been political activists in the country from which they are fleeing an unpleasant regime. In between there is a large grey area for which it is necessary to have a proper system to determine whether people fall within the terms of the convention.
We must not conjure up a vision of all refugees in harrowing and distressing circumstances. Many people who flee from imminent persecution arrive distressed and destitute and sometimes in unusual circumstances. However, most applications are from people who have travelled on international airliners and arrive at main airports. Others have been here for some time and, having exhausted all other arguments to establish a right to reside, decide to apply for political asylum because they suddenly recall that if they were returned to their country of origin they might face persecution. No doubt some hon. Members will conjure up visions of all asylum applicants being distressed and arriving hurriedly, fleeing from


persecution. Many applications are made in perfectly ordinary circumstances and our procedures are fair and give everybody a proper chance to put his arguments.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary agree that the grey area that he mentioned also applies to the many asylum applicants who in the past were not able to establish their rights under the convention but whom the Home Office thought it unconscionable to return? Consequently those people were given indefinite leave to remain. It does not automatically follow that someone who fails in his formal application will he bundled out of the country.

Mr. Clarke: We are reasonably generous in giving exceptional leave to remain. Sometimes we grant it to people who do not qualify, simply because in the two, three or four years over which the case has been spun out people have acquired children, wives or other settled obligations and in all conscience we have allowed them to stay. There will always be people who, although they do not satisfy the convention, should be given exceptional leave to remain because, although they would not face personal persecution if returned, they would face demonstrable hardship. That is the most difficult area and the hon. Member for Sedgefield touched upon it.
The Geneva convention covers those who run a personal risk of persecution because of their political or religious beliefs. In the public mind that becomes tangled with the cases of people who flee here from famine or civil war. We accept our humanitarian obligation to accept some of those people. That is why we are in the process of taking about 4,000 people from Bosnia who have been referred to us by the United Nations. We shall look at individual cases from wherever they come.
There is no point in having an asylum that does not allow the return of anybody in any circumstances to a country in which there is civil war, poverty, famine or whatever. The entire population of some countries could qualify for asylum or refuge here if that definition were applied. That is why we have to look at each case and why exceptional leave to remain must be exceptional. It is a discretion of last resort.

Mr. Blair: It is right for the Secretary of State to concede that there is a grey area between UN-defined refugees and bogus applicants, because that gives a different colour to the debate. However, his remarks about those coming here were callous. He spoke of them coming here on international airlines in a way that implied that they were part of the international jet set. I have never suggested that all those who make asylum claims are in circumstances of acute distress, but many are and many Labour Members have experience of working with such people. He must justify applying the procedures to all cases, whether or not they involve people who are in a good position to make their claim quickly. We measure our system of justice by how we deal with those who are worst off, not by how to deal with those who are best off.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that some arrive in considerable distress and I am satisfied that the way in which we deal with those cases is fair—indeed, our system goes to considerable lengths to be fair. However, it is wrong, for

the purposes of debate, to conjure up a vision of most of those arriving doing so in great distress. Most of those who arrive do so calmly and in comfortable circumstances. Many have been in this country for some time before suddenly realising that they face persecution at home and deciding to make an application for asylum. For that reason, while we have procedures that ensure justice in the case of those in the most distressed and difficult circumstances, we must not be naive in the rules that we apply to everyone else. We shall debate other subjects later —for example, there is an Opposition amendment that would make it easier for people to apply from third countries before they have even got here. Like that proposal, many of the Opposition's suggestions would negate any serious attempts to remove promptly those who can demonstrably and rapidly be seen to have no claim at all.
Some of the arguments against the Opposition's ideas are not just technicalities, as has been suggested. Claims are often manifestly unfounded. I gave an example on Second Reading of a Sri Lankan who has been living in the United States for the past couple of years who would be returned because he has arrived from a safe third country. He cannot get asylum by saying that he would be persecuted if he went to Sri Lanka because he has not come from Sri Lanka and faces no difficulty in the country from which he has come. Many safe third country claims can now be rapidly turned round.

Mr. Marlow: Obviously, the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are concerned with the interests, wishes and desires of the people of this country, whereas the Opposition are concerned about foreigners. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that in the past people have used the device of extension to put down roots in the United Kingdom. Inevitably, in certain circumstances, they have been given leave to remain. Would not it be helpful if my right hon. Friend said from the Dispatch Box today that if, in future, people use such devices, it would be most unlikely that leave to remain would be granted?

Mr. Clarke: Those who are not able to demonstrate a well-founded claim will find that the British system of justice comes to a reasonably expeditious decision or a more expeditious decision than has been the custom. No system could be described as just if it takes years to reach finality, particularly with the weaker claims. We should be able to reach a fair decision reasonably quickly, which means that people will not have had a chance to put down roots. When we give exceptional leave to remain, the word "exceptional" is important and we shall deal with foreigners extremely well and fairly, I hope.
This is a civilised country and we shall allow people from overseas to settle here if there is a compelling reason to allow them to do so even when they do not comply with the rules. However, it must be compelling. With the best will in the world, we cannot open our doors to all those who think that they would have a better quality of life here than in the distressed country from which they come.

Mr. Blair: I understand that the debate has taken on a slightly different character, but I want to make one point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows perfectly well—that is what is so deplorable about the way in which the Government play this issue—that when he makes his claim about open-door policy, it is reported


outside as if the Opposition say that anyone who wants to come here can do so, while the Government say that that should not be the policy. Nobody is suggesting that.
When the Home Secretary uses the example of a Sri Lankan who has lived in the United States as the basis for the Bill, that is debate by caricature rather than debate by principle. He fools nobody if he thinks that he can retain any credentials as a humane Home Secretary by engaging in such debate. As he has already agreed with me, we shall judge the Bill on how it affects those who are most distressed. If we can make out our claim, as I believe we can, that it treats them poorly, it is the Home Secretary, rather than us, who has the explaining to do.

Mr. Clarke: I do not think for one moment that the Opposition can make out a case that the system treats people poorly. The delays and the difficulty in removing anyone who makes any kind of claim give rise to the circumstances that so annoy my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and many others. The present system gets in the way of our dealing fairly and promptly with the genuine applicants for political asylum whom we want to help.
The hon. Gentleman may think that I am not being fair to his policies, hut, as the debate unfolds, we shall listen to what he says. Had we followed the advice of the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill, we should have made no worthwhile changes or improvements in the present system. The way in which it operates leads to protracted stays in the country of people who turn out never to have had a genuine claim to be here. We have an immigration control system that is fair and effective and we need to extend it to ensure that it covers asylum properly as well.
New clause 6 is part of that. It honours an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in Committee that in no circumstances would we remove people from the country until their applications have properly been determined. On that basis, I trust that this new clause, at least, is non-controversial and I again commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM OVERSEAS

`Where it appears to the Secretary of State that conditions in a country outside the United Kingdom render it impracticable for a person to seek leave to enter the United Kingdom or otherwise to travel to the United Kingdom then the Secretary of State shall make arrangements in that country or in an adjoining country for persons to be able to claim asylum in the United Kingdom in a like manner to persons arriving in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'removed', insert
'or refused leave to enter, or refused entry clearance'.
No. 2, in page 1, line 11 after 'from', insert 'or to'.

Mr. Allen: I like it when I hear Conservatives using the word "bogus" because, as hon Members who served on the Committee will know, nothing was more bogus than their arguments about how much they cared about political asylum-seekers. In Committee, the debate made it obvious that the Bill was designed to make it harder for people to seek political asylum, rather than easier. This talk about bogus needs to be put back in the kennel where it belongs, with the Conservative claim about being caring.
The only bogus part of our debates in Committee was the Conservatives' attempt to paint every individual who seeks refuge and succour in our land as some sort of social security scrounger. They argued by taking a case and extrapolating from it the thousands of people seeking refuge here, perhaps from Bosnia. They tainted such people with the claim that they are trying to twist and turn and manipulate the system and put in multiple applications for social security. That is what bogus conjures up in my mind and that of my colleagues who fought the Bill, line by line, in Committee.
The other interesting argument that we are now getting from the Home Secretary is the almost intellectual point about the grey area between bogus applicants—that is, those with no claim whatsoever—and people who are genuinely seeking asylum here. We need to have a genuine intellectual debate on that point, which is why the argument is so appealing to Labour Members. Sadly, the House of Commons and its Committees are not structured so that we can have that debate properly, but there is a genuine debate about how we define categories of people who do not immediately, technically, fall into the political asylum seekers sector—for example, those who are fleeing from famine or civil war. That is a debate that did not take place in Committee. The issue was not debated on Second Reading and nor will it be debated this evening. It is a debate that will have to take place in a forum that takes itself rather more seriously than, sadly, the Committee did on several occasions.
We contrast the vision that is being offered by the Home Secretary of a genuine discussion on how we categorise those people who are in the middle, as it were, with the practice of the Conservative Government. I do not have the sheaf of press cuttings from which I quoted on Second Reading, but it was possible for me to close my eyes and pick any headline from about 20 from The Sun, the Star and other newspapers. They were headlines such as "Don't let them in" and "Keep them out". That was the sort of nonsense that was pumped out by the Home Secretary's predecessor. There is now a slightly more intellectual feel about the arguments. I am sure that my hon. Friends will make it clear that much of the Bill owes its origins more to the pending leadership contest within the Conservative party than to a genuine effort to try to help those who are seeking political asylum in our country.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of who is genuine can often mean life or death to those who are actually involved? Surely it is important that the organisation that used to be the refugee unit of the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service, and which is now the refugee legal centre—perhaps not all Conservative Members will agree with this but I am sure that it will find the agreement of most hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber is recognised as one that does a good job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if, given the


short time that is allowed for appeals and other factors, the refugee legal centre found that it was not in a position to carry out a thorough investigation into whether an individual claim was genuine?

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of these matters and Ministers would do well to heed his advice. The organisations that have been involved, especially the UKIAS, have suffered from a degree of internal dissension which has not been helpful. I hope that those days are passed and that every support will be given by the Government to the refugee legal centre and other bodies. I hope, too, that they are given adequate resources and time to pursue individual cases in the way that my hon. Friend would wish.
Long after this measure has been repealed people will remember 1992 in immigration and asylum terms, not for an ill-fated Bill but for the shameful way in which the Government responded to the crisis in Bosnia. It is laughable that only 150 people were initially allowed into the United Kingdom so as to escape from that conflict. It is barely more credible that now just 1,000 people are to be allowed into the country. Of course, the Government have the support of those who are seeking to bump up the numbers to a monumental 4,000. Even the Government admit that the crisis in Bosnia has produced 3 million displaced persons. It defies belief that our country can assist its European partners to the extent of taking in only 4,000 people, or 1,000 and their dependants, when other nations have done so much more. I find it especially shameful that the Austrian Government had to bail out the British Conservative Government when they refused to allow the 173 people who were trapped on the border to be assisted by Leeds Alert. They were taken into Austria to be looked after. That is one of the reasons that caused us to table the clause.
The clause seeks to extend the possibilities for those who are seeking political asylum to pursue that course legally. I am greatly surprised that the Government have said that they will oppose the clause as it is written or as it could be amended if they are dissatisfied with its present wording.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has referred to Bosnian nationals being received in the United Kingdom. I have received a reply today from the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that so far only 79 former detainees from Bosnia have been received in this country. Apparently they arrived on 17 December. There is no sign of when the remaining 1,000 are to arrive. It could be months or possibly years before we see their arrival. Will my hon. Friend confirm that another reply to a question indicates that 29 former Yugoslav nationals were refused leave to enter and were removed from the United Kingdom? They applied to come here as visitors. The Minister does not know to where they have been returned. Surely that must be a matter of considerable concern.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend was tireless in his efforts in Committee and on the Floor of the House to highlight the difficulties faced by those who are suffering persecution in Bosnia. I commend his work to the House, and am glad to put that on the record.
It is pathetic—it would be laughable if it were not so tragic—that a mere 79 people from Bosnia have been allowed into our country to escape the evils of the regimes that are persecuting them directly and personally. I understand from my own sources that the 1,000 political asylum seekers that the Government have now agreed to take into the country may not arrive in the United Kingdom before the end of the summer. Only 1,000 people will be rescued from the conflict and the persecution that they face in the next seven or eight months following the imposition of the visa regime. That is deplorable. We need the new clause, or something like it, so that there is a legal means by which individual claims can be assessed in extreme, urgent and difficult circumstances in the country of origin.
That is not something that would have to be done in every instance. I find it difficult to contemplate examples other than those that replicate actual instances in Bosnia. It would have been fortunate—it would have been the only fortunate feature of the conflict—if we had had three or four officials from the immigration department of the Home Office on the border in Bosnia to process claims. That did not happen and the Minister was not prepared to travel to Bosnia. The Government were not prepared to send a small contingent of Home Office officials to Bosnia. All that demonstrates to the entire world how seriously the Government were taking the plight of people in Bosnia.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: I am happy to give way to an hon. Member who is one of the closest in the House, in terms of his constituency, to our continental partners. I have no doubt that he will have something to say about the cross-border controls that still apply at the port of Dover.

Mr. Brazier: I take a particular interest in another conflict about which comparatively little is published, and that is in the Lebanon. When we consider what is going on in the Lebanon, in Nagorno Karabakh, in Cambodia and in Afghanistan, the only difference between those events and those in Bosnia is that the conflict in Bosnia appears on our television screens. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, however well meaning the clause is, the scale of the applications that would ensue would be unbelievably high? Does he expect the terms of the clause to appear in a future Labour party manifesto?

Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman reads the clause, he may be assisted. He might then understand what we are talking about. It begins:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State
that it is impractical for certain things to happen. In other words, the clause, if it were accepted, would not apply in all circumstances. It would probably not be appropriate in the circumstances that apply in the Lebanon.
In Bosnia, as I attempted to explain earlier I shall have another go and take it more slowly—we saw a situation in which it was physically possible to have a small team of Home Office officials somewhere near the border of Bosnia. That would be an emergency response, and it would be made only if the Home Secretary considered it to be appropriate. It would not be a regular response. It would avoid, however, a situation which the Government precipitated in the context of the Leeds Alert episode. A


number of people on the border wanted to make a claim for political asylum, but there was nowhere in Bosnia to register it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Of course there was.

Mr. Allen: That is true—but to do so those people would have had to fight their way back through the lines of the advancing Serbian infantry. They would have had to go back to Sarajevo or Belgrade, risking life and limb. They were emaciated, they had come out of camps and many had medical conditions. What sort of Government would put people through that, especially given the suffering that they had already endured?
In fact, those people were quite fortunate because Leeds Alert was to hand. It drove to Vienna to get the necessary application forms and it then drove back to Bosnia so that they could be filled out. It then drove trans-Europe to London because that was the only place where the forms would be accepted. They were lodged with the Home Office, which kept Alert on a string for several days. Finally, it refused 169 and accepted just four applications.
Had the Government really wanted to help in that emergency they would not have delayed the decisions. Then, even if the eventual outcome was the same, at least those individuals whose applications were not accepted would have been put out of their misery at a much earlier stage. That would have demonstrated a caring approach and shown that the Government were serious about wanting to help the asylum seekers. Instead, the Government had Mr. Beasley, Mr. Lamb and others dodging around, jumping through hoops and over obstacles, just to delay the decision on the political asylum applications.

Mr. Roger Gale: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman too much, but I had hoped that he would respond fully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that my hon. Friend would comment on the frontier controls still being enforced at the port of Dover. My hon. Friend's constituency has no sea frontier, but I have the adjacent seat which does have a channel coast port. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should abandon our frontier controls?

Mr. Allen: I apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I met his former agent on the first cross-channel ferry into Britain on 1 January and I obviously confused my facts. It was an entertaining evening. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I shall say that the reason that I was on that ferry was that the need to show a passport was abolished on that day. Sadly, Herr Bangemann—and perhaps I should say head Bangemann—the Home Secretary strongly disagreed on removing the requirement to show passports at borders. The embarrassing incident of the arrest of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on immigration and asylum was avoided by the deft footwork of some Customs officers, who waved through the coach on which a number of Conservative colleagues from the European Parliament and myself were travelling. I had expected at least to be asked to show my passport, but the officers could not get the coach off the ferry and through

Customs quickly enough. I am still not sure about the position of those who travel abroad and return through Dover. Until the Home Secretary can answer that question, it is not for me to bail him out.

Mr. Brazier: What are the hon. Gentleman's views?

Mr. Allen: It is my view that it would assist those seeking political asylum in this country if, in an emergency such as that in Bosnia, there was a facility in the relevant country where people could discuss their applications and their needs. That would prevent the sort of nonsense that happened with Leeds Alert.
I am not saying that the wording of the new clause is perfect. If the Minister gives me the nod, I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree to withdraw it so that it could be worded appropriately. The problem is that for those wanting political asylum in the United Kingdom, the Government are virtually insisting that they break the law. At the very least, someone, somewhere, has to be deceived. It is not possible to obtain political asylum abroad and bring it into the United Kingdom. An asylum seeker has to get to the United Kingdom by some means before he can make a claim. Therefore, by definition, he would have arrived here by a route that probably was not an honest route. For example, such a person would have to pretend to be a visitor or something else before he could land and say, "I claim political asylum."
The new clause would legitimise individuals who go through due process, not necessarily at the port of entry but in extreme circumstances—such as those in Bosnia —in their own countries. I can only repeat that such an arrangement would be extraordinary rather than the norm. It appears that with the Bosnian problem the Government have—perhaps in pursuit of their privatisation policy—subcontracted to the United Nations and the Red Cross the decision on those who may be allowed in to this country. They have been given their tender contract —1,000 people over the next six to nine months. If that time scale is inaccurate, perhaps the Minister would correct me.
It is possible that those two organisations, which are under great pressure in other areas, may nominate people who the Home Office may not regard as satisfactory and who may not meet the criteria. Perhaps they have not been in a camp for long enough, perhaps they have not lost sufficient numbers of relatives, or perhaps they have not suffered sufficient deprivation to qualify for the magical figure of 1,000 out of the 3 million people who have been displaced. In many ways, that is a failure of the European dimension as operated by the Government throughout their presidency. They did not make an adequate response to the Bosnian problem. Grey-suited men waited for photocalls in various European capitals, unable to make any impact on the Bosnian crisis. There was no genuine burden sharing, either in terms of the numbers of refugees coming out of those strife-torn areas or in making a proper financial settlement for those countries that took a greater share of the burden.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend referred to visa applications from former Yugoslav nationals. In a reply today, the Foreign Office Minister said that
we are monitoring the effect of the visa regime on former Yugoslav nationals on the visa sections at Belgrade, Vienna, Zagreb, Budapest, Sofia, Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples,


Dusseldorf and Paris. At these posts 1,715 applications were received from former Yugoslav nationals—1,251 were granted, 238 were refused and 203 have a decision pending.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that, if clause 9 is passed, the 238 who have been refused will have no right of appeal—like the thousands of others who, in the coming months, undoubtedly will also be refused—against those arbitrary decisions?

Mr. Allen: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot confirm that because I do not know. I listened very carefully, as did my hon. Friend, to the Minister's remarks in Committee—but the more that I re-read Hansard, the more confused I became, and I imagine the more confused will be individuals who want to exercise a right of appeal, if they are allowed to do such a thing. I would like the Minister to answer my hon. Friend's question because I believe that clause 9 and the rest of the Bill will not allow such people to appeal.
6 pm
The Bill's failure to make provision for people from abroad to apply in emergency circumstances will make life harder for those seeking political asylum. If it appears that people are reaching our country, the Bill introduces other, administrative obstacles. If those obstacles are overcome, the Bill imposes a visa regime. Where a visa regime is imposed, the Bill makes it difficult for it to be implemented by forcing people to go across Europe to obtain and to complete forms.
We want to ensure justice for those people who, in Bosnia-type situations, have suffered, been abused, held captive, and deprived of the basics of human life. New clause 2—modest as it is and however imperfectly it may be worded—would give a sign. Rather than the sign that, the Government usually put up to people seeking our help and aid, it would give a sign that where circumstances permitted, it would be appropriate to send one or two people from the Home Office to vet claims and to allow applicants either to enter our country for political asylum or to tell them, "We are sorry, but you do not qualify."
The fact that, as we understand it, the Government are not prepared to entertain new clause 2 in any form indicates the truth about their concern for those seeking political asylum—it just does not exist.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Clearly, new clause 2 is prompted by the political situation in the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties experienced by many people from that country in seeking political asylum in Britain. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who also led for Labour in Committee, spoke for many when he pointed out the unconscionable embarrassment that Britain has faced because of the small part that it played in dealing with the consequences of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia in particular.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman also thinks that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve his purposes because, as new clause 2 proposes, it would be possible for facilities to be made available in Vienna, other border towns of Austria or southern Germany, or in neighbouring countries, to evaluate applications and to determine whether Britain is prepared to play its part in providing a haven for those displaced.
New clause 2 attempts to tackle both the problem or asylum and that alluded to in the earlier debate, to which the Home Secretary made some reply—those people who do not strictly fall within the provisions of the convention but whom it would be reasonable for Britain to seek to offer a home.
The clear sense of making such a provision close to the ground—close to Bosnia—is emphasied by the experiences we have witnessed at the border and the Leeds Alert case. It seems unlikely that many people in the countries in question will look to the United Kingdom for relief, given our record of dealing with such applications over the past year.
Figures made available to me by the Library's research department show that between January and November this country received a mere 4,830 applications for asylum from the former Yugoslavia, refused 110,000, and granted asylum to none. That suggests a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Home Office for tackling the problem directly, and the belief that if we show ourselves to be tardy in dealing with applications, they will simply disappear.
It is not good enough for Britain, as a member of the European Community, to land the problem in the lap of countries neighbouring the strife—for that is the practical consequence of Home Office policy and why tens of thousands are leaving the former Yugoslavia and arriving in countries such as Germany, which is hard pressed by the adherence of the eastern zone to the republic, and Austria, which is a very small country.
The policy pursued by the British Government is positively dangerous not only for those countries which are receiving refugees but to the whole of Europe. It has undoubtedly strengthened the fear of foreign influx, where that influx has been large. If we look at the totality of the picture during the period to which I referred, the number granted asylum in this country from all over the world was a mere 1,040. That compares with 17,270 refused applications.
Britain is not a country to which refugees would look for a haven in the times in which we live. It is striking, particularly if one considers the state of African countries languishing under dictatorships and tyrannies, how in many cases we have simply turned away all applications. It is open to question whether, if more were known, those applicants would be eligible for asylum status. On the face of it, one must take the view that it is the Government's policy strongly to discourage applications for asylum from abroad.
Although the Government will undoubtedly refuse to accept new clause 2, saying that it is not strictly necessary —and, in a purely legal sense, it is not—I hope that they will indicate how they propose to share the burden, particularly with other European countries, of offering relief to those from the former Yugoslavia who are able to enter the other countries of the European Community. I hope that the Government will also tell us whether they are prepared to reconsider the exiguous numbers to whom they have undertaken to offer room and the criteria on which they will determine which cases to accept.
Many people in this country believe that what is being done in their name to tackle the problem is wholly inadequate. They believe that it is stoking up trouble and making more likely disturbance and civil strife in other, at present more peaceful, parts of Europe. This is a matter of great urgency and in tabling new clause 2 the Labour party


has given the Government an opportunity to demonstrate that their views have advanced somewhat since the Christmas recess.

Mr. Charles Wardle: As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I found it hard to repress a wave of nostalgia for the time that we spent in Committee. There he was, rambling up hill and down dale without touching too frequently on the subject in hand.
When he discussed asylum applications, the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the fact that some 75 per cent. of asylum-seekers apply after they have entered this country. I hope that he is not suggesting that the great majority of those applicants arrive as bogus visitors; many arrive as genuine visitors and then apply for asylum.
The hon. Gentleman talked of his adventures on new year's eve and new year's day. He forgot to tell the House that, at Dover, an inspector—an immigration officer—boarded his coach, asked whether everyone on board was an EC citizen and then got off the coach. Immigration controls were clearly in place.

Mr. Allen: It is true that a gentleman boarded the coach; but he asked whether everyone was having a good time.

Mr. Wardle: I do not wish to malign the hon. Gentleman, but it is possible that he was having such a good time that he did not hear the rest of the sentence which, I am sure, was pronounced by the immigration officer.
As the House will of course be aware, on 1 January there were no changes in controls at ports of entry in any EC country. If the hon. Gentleman had taken himself to Rome, Brussels or anywhere else in the Community that day, he would have found that that was the case.

Mr. Madden: If any members of the party on the coach had admitted that they were not EC nationals, what would the immigration officer have done?

Mr. Wardle: He would have wanted to ascertain their identity. Having done so, he would have exercised the appropriate controls. Had any such person proved to be a genuine non-EC national, the controls would have followed the pattern that they follow at every port of entry in regard to non-EC nationals—a pattern that will continue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to our record in the former Yugoslavia. He mentioned the 79 arrivals—helped by an intervention by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It should be borne in mind that we rely on the UNHCR and the International Red Cross to pick out the cases that come to this country; the UNHCR selected the 79 and their dependants and will continue to send us further groups in the months to come.
The passion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) can never be doubted, but his logic sometimes defies belief. He referred to the role played by this country in Yugoslavia. I hope that he did not mean to slight the efforts of our soldiers, medical teams and technicians to deal with the terrible conflict in that country. He seemed to suggest, however, that the Germans, the Austrians and others had made a political decision to take the large numbers that had arrived, and that simply is not true. Perhaps 600,000 people have

arrived in Germany as a result of that terrible conflict, but that was not the consequence of a political decision: they just turned up there.
6.15 pm
Both new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to broaden the United Kingdom's current international obligations to asylum seekers by including references to entry clearance procedures. The 1951 convention imposes obligations on signatory states in relation to refugees on their territory or at their borders. There is no obligation to allow refugees a free hand to choose where in the world they would like to live. New clause 2 seeks to put asylum seekers who are not in the United Kingdom—and thus have not engaged our obligations to afford protection—on the same footing as those who have arrived here. That would distort the concept of asylum, as understood within the terms of the Geneva convention, into just another category of immigration.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister mentioned logic earlier. What is the logic of his argument about whether or not the German Government sought to give asylum to 600,000 people? Is not it a fact that those people are there and that our country is a fellow member of the European Community? The Minister is simply not addressing our duty to deal with the problem.

Mr. Wardle: It is the hon. Gentleman's logic that is faulty. Is he suggesting that because 600,000 people have arrived, without the express invitation of the German Government, to add to the large Yugoslav community in that country, every other country should take the same action? If so, he is ignoring agreements reached within the international community, and recommendations made by the UNHCR and the International Red Cross.
The hon. Gentleman said that the applications of the nearly 5,000 former Yugoslays who applied for asylum in this country last year had not been resolved. Perhaps, in that context, he will understand the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve a similar result to that of new clause 2 by including an entry clearance application in the definition of an asylum claim. It also seeks to include the ground that a refusal of leave to enter would breach our convention obligations. That is an unnecessary addition; removal following a refusal of leave to enter is the action that could breach our convention obligations and that is already provided for adequately in the wording of clause 1.

Mr. Allen: The Minister seems to, find no difficulty in meeting our international partners through the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers, the Trevi group, and the Schengen group—although we are not a member of that group, we receive information from it. He has no problem in negotiating arrangements such as harmonised visa and border controls. Why can he not, in the same fora, meet our European colleagues and negotiate a proper settlement for people who seek political asylum—either by sharing the burden of the numbers that we accept, or by sharing the financial contribution?

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are playing a part in the international community. As was said many times in Committee, we are also turning to the experts—that is, the UNHCR—for precisely that purpose. We do not want, however, to see movement on a scale that would give way to the evil goal of ethnic cleansing.

Mr. Bernie Grant: rose—

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) will understand that I wish to make progress. He will then, no doubt, want to listen to the reply of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

Mr. Grant: Will the Minister give way on this point?

Mr. Wardle: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman's entreaties?

Mr. Grant: I thank the Minister for being so kind as to give way on this matter. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be referred to constantly in the Minister's speeches, so can he settle this matter once and for all? Does he agree that the UNHCR is not an independent body, as he claims, but that it comes under the United Nations and is accountable to the Security Council, of which Britain, France and the United States are permanent members? When the Minister refers to the UNHCR, therefore, he is talking about an organisation that is the servant of the United Nations and a lackey of the British Government.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a point that he made frequently in Committee —his views about the United Nations generally and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in particular. He is right that the UNHCR is an arm of the United Nations. We, and the international community generally, regard the UNHCR as the experts on the ground who can make the decisions that really matter for the Bosnians.
The simple fact is that we must inevitably take a different approach to asylum seekers in this country from those who have found safety in other countries and from those who might at some point have a claim to refugee status but who have not yet left their own countries. The United Kingdom cannot be the guarantor of every individual around the world who might fear persecution. We cannot undertake to evacuate everyone who claims to be in danger and to bring them here.
The Geneva convention was very sensible and practical in its limitation of the definition of refugees to those who are already outside their own country. That does not mean that the international community has no interest in what happens to people in their own country. Major humanitarian efforts have often been made to assist the internally displaced, such as those in Bosnia, in those circumstances, but to hold out the prospect of emigration as a refugee, with no need to move or interrupt one's normal life while the application is considered, seems, in the real world of migratory pressures and strict immigration controls, to encourage unfounded applications and misuse.
At present, we consider outside the normal immigration rules all applications that we receive for entry clearance to come here to claim asylum. The criteria that we apply are that the person is prima facie a refugee within the terms of the 1951 convention and that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate country of refuge than where the person is. I am sure that this is the right approach. It enables us to respond to cases where links with this country clearly make it right that the person should come here, but it does not open up a formal channel that would be open to misuse. No other European country adopts an approach

that is significantly different from ours. The proposed amendments would be likely to add substantially to the number of applications that we receive.
The particular example of refugees from the former Yugoslavia has already been debated extensively. The availability of procedures of the sort proposed in new clause 2 would make it more rather than less difficult to deal with that matter in a coherent way. It is not practicable for everyone who might be at risk, or who might claim to be at risk, in the former Yugoslavia, or anywhere else, to come to this country, but in making our contribution to the international response to that terrible conflict we are working with the UNHCR to identify those humanitarian cases that it would make sense to bring to this country. As the House knows, I announced on 30 November that we were prepared to receive up to 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants, which will amount to about 4,000 people.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I noted with interest what the Minister said about the close working relationship that the Government have with the UNHCR. If that relationship is so good, why did the Minister resist the pleas of the Opposition for the UNHCR handbook to be incorporated in the Bill?

Mr. Wardle: Because there is no need for it to be incorporated in the Bill. That does not mean that the handbook is disregarded, as I reminded the hon. Lady in Committee and seek to do now.
We are ready to consider in the normal way any applications for entry clearance that we receive from individuals, as well as those put forward by UNHCR. I repeat that the Government remain ready to consider applications from abroad to come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum. I am convinced, however, that we should not create a new immigration channel for that purpose, as new clause 2 seeks to do. Instead, we should continue to deal with those applications on a discretionary basis, outside the normal immigration rules. That, together with a readiness to work with the international organisations to find solutions to refugee-producing situations, seems to me to be the proper and practical approach and the one that is most likely to produce a helpful outcome. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject new clause 2.

Mr. Allen: By leave of the House, may I say in reply that by tabling new clause 2 we have attempted to open up the debate and to allow the Government to show whether they really want to assist genuine political refugees who are in absolutely appalling circumstances. There is an almost unique set of circumstances in Bosnia. Had we been able to send people to Bosnia to assist them in making their applications—and to reject, where necessary, their applications—we should have been in a position to do some good. By tabling the new clause and probing the Government to find out whether they were prepared to seek a solution to the problem of political asylum seekers, we were hoping for a good response. Sadly, we have received the response that we expected. The Government have rejected our overtures to find better ways to help asylum seekers.
The same applies to the grey area between those who are so obviously political asylum seekers and those who are so obviously not—the victims of civil war, famine and so on. It is apparent that that grey area needs to be looked at by a new Government. As the Conservative


Government have refused even to consider the possibility of helping genuine political refugees, we intend to press the new clause to a Division.

Questions put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 295.

Division No. 105]
[6.27 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Faulds, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Austin-Walker, John
Gapes, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hain, Peter


Blair, Tony
Hall, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Hanson, David


Boyce, Jimmy
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Heppell, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoyle, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jamieson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Dafis, Cynog
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Denham, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McKelvey, William


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)





Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Snape, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Stevenson, George


Olner, William
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watson, Mike


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Alan Meale.


Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Coe, Sebastian


Beggs, Roy
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cran, James


Booth, Hartley
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Andrew
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dicks, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Duncan-Smith, Iain






Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Milligan, Stephen


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tredinnick, David


Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Speed, Sir Keith
Trimble, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spring, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan
Whitney, Ray


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Wiggin, Jerry


Sykes, John
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

EXAMINATION: OFFENCES

'.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, in any of the following cases:—

(a) he either by himself or in conjunction with any other person prevents any asylum seeker who has arrived or attempted to arrive in the territory of the United Kingdom from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer;
(b) he either by himself or in conjunction with any other person or persons hinders or delays the asylum seeker who has arrived or attempted to arrive in the territory of the United Kingdom from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer;
(c) if being an immigration officer he conducts the examination either without authority or in such a manner as to render that examination unlawful;
(d) if as owner or agent of a ship or aircraft he procures, assists or permits any employee, servant or agent or any other person to commit an offence under subsection (a) or (b) above;

(2) Subsection (1) above applies to matters both within and outside the territory of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One welcome aspect of the Bill is that, for the first time, applicants for political asylum who arrive at a port in the United Kingdom will have a statutory right of appeal. About three quarters of those who are already here and apply for political asylum already have that right, but it is generally agreed that those who flee from another country and arrive at a port probably have the most pressing need to claim refuge.
There are many unwelcome aspects of the Bill, but the one that I have mentioned is a welcome one. However, it is tarnished and corroded by two main elements in the Bill: first, the removal of the right of appeal for visitors, with


which I shall deal later; and, secondly, the legislative barbed wire barrier which the Bill flings out. The barbed wire barrier is designed to prevent people from ever availing themselves of the right to claim political asylum in the United Kingdom in the first place.
The underlying principle of the Bill is getting one's foot in the door. Unless the applicant gets his or her foot in the door, it is impossible to exercise the right to claim asylum and a right of appeal. The Government have a hidden and rather sinister strategy to ensure that as few people as possible get that foot in the door. If people do not get their foot in the door, the Government do not have to say yes or no or provide any right of appeal.
There are two particular barbs on the legal barbed wire barrier to refugees. The first is the practice of requiring visas to he granted to people from countries from which people are likely to flee and to seek political asylum. The rule is easily forecast. If Kurds want to come from Turkey to claim political asylum, impose a visa regime on Turkey. If Tamils want to come from Sri Lanka to claim political asylum because of undoubted problems in that country, impose a visa. If people want to come from former Yugoslavia to claim political asylum in Britain, impose a visa to prevent them from getting a foot in the door to make that application. That is the first barb in the legal barbed wire harrier that has been put around the country.
6.45 pm
The second barb is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. If people who know that they need a visa to come to the United Kingdom are foolish enough to apply in an overseas country for a visa to visit the United Kingdom and disclose, as did the Bosnian refugees, that they are likely to claim persecution, it follows as night follows day that the application will be refused. Therefore, people have no possibility of making an application for asylum which is subject to an appeal. That brings into play the carriers' liability Act.
If an applicant boards an aircraft or ship without a visa, arrives in the United Kingdom and claims political asylum —that is to say, if that person gets a foot in the door—the carrier of the applicant for political asylum will be fined £2,000 without any right of appeal. The Act puts a £2,000 premium on the carrier. It physically prevents people from making an application to an immigration officer in the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom law will perhaps not apply for the whole of the journey. It depends on the carrier and the ship. The system which the Government have put together to prevent people from arriving here almost encourages bounty hunters who will pick out prospective applicants whose presence in the United Kingdom could otherwise cost the carrier £2,000 per person. We know that the fines imposed on carriers amount to many millions of pounds.
I understand that there have been examples of people being physically prevented from reaching an immigration officer in the United Kingdom. The new clause would make that a criminal offence.
The new clause also deals with the rarer circumstances —I do not suggest that they arise often—in which an immigration officer might interview an applicant for admission to the United Kingdom but not admit of the fact that an application for political asylum was made and then return that person to a third country. That is what happens to people who arrive in the United Kingdom and claim admission. If they come from a visa country and do

not make an application for political asylum, they can be removed almost within hours and sent back to a third country. The new clause would equally make a refusal under those circumstances a criminal offence.
The carriers' liability Act puts a £2,000 price on the head of every visaless refugee who comes to Britain. The new clause would at least be a discouragement to claiming that price. The evil with which the new clause proposes to deal is not imagined. There have been several examples in which a price has been claimed. It is possible that the increase in the fine on carriers from £1,000 to £2,000, together with events in various parts of the world, will make the process of claiming a price on the head of prospective applicants more attractive than ever to carriers and disreputable people.
If the Government are making it a criminal offence for applicants for political asylum not to give their fingerprints, surely they should make it a criminal offence for anyone to prevent such people from reaching an immigration officer to have even the opportunity to have their fingerprints taken.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I want to ask the Minister a question which arises from subsection (1)(c) of the new clause. Unless I am seriously misguided, I hope that the Government will not accept the new clause because of the massive problems that paragraph (c) could create for immigration officers.
Most of the debates today, in Committee and elsewhere have been based on the false premise that the British Parliament and Government control immigration policy and the right of people to come to this country. As we well know, significant changes have been imposed on us by our membership of the European Community. First, every citizen of a European Community country is entitled to come here. Secondly, we will shortly face the problem of citizens of some overseas colonies who will have the automatic right of admission. The citizens of a small Portuguese colony, not far from Hong Kong, will shortly be fully entitled to come to this country, as the Government are well aware, which could create problems if people from Hong Kong go to that colony.
I have a high regard for the Under-Secretary of State and have never doubted his integrity. I hope that he will give us some guidance on the position of the Government and of immigration officers in the event of a case being taken to the European Court, as is likely, to decide whether a person coming to an EC country from a third-world country will have the automatic right of admission to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Allen: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me to understand his argument. Is he criticising the fact that most immigration decisions are made by meetings of European Community Ministers? Is he criticising the fact that none of the decisions comes before the European Commission or the European Parliament? If that happened, would it not give us a better chance to scrutinise what goes on in the Trevi group and the ad hoc group of' Immigration Ministers?

Sir Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman believes that argument, he should consider the matter more carefully. As he well knows, there is no way that the European Parliament, or any other such body, could consider such matters. It would be different if we were to start all over again and have a European Government and a European


Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land. As he is well aware, the decisions will be taken by the European Court—a political court, which is not controlled by any democratic body. Irrespective of whether one considers that that is a good or a bad thing, the basic issue is important.
The Government will be well aware that the Home Secretary has had long discussions with Commissioner Bangemann because it was assumed that article 7 might allow any person from a third-world country who was entitled to come to any part of the European Community to come to the United Kingdom. It was assumed that a bona fide visitor to Greece, Portugal or Italy would have an automatic right of entry here, despite our laws. The Home Secretary has had long discussions with Mr. Bangemann and it seems that a decision has been delayed for a year or more. However, as the Minister knows well, that agreement does not prevent anyone from a third-world country from going to the European Court to claim that, because of article 7, he or she should have right of admission into the United Kingdom. Although we cannot prejudge such matters, the signs are that the European Court would find in favour of such an application and in those circumstances we could face considerable problems. Italy is virtually an open house country, to which it is easy to gain admission, and Greece poses a problem because, although Athens is tightly controlled, it is easy to gain entry to the rest of the country.
I do not wish simply to peddle an EC argument; I wish to point out the dangers if we do not have effective controls. I think that all hon. Members have been horrified at recent events in Germany, which have happened not because the Germans are nasty people but because they gained the impression—rightly or wrongly—that there was no effective control over people coming to their country from the eastern bloc. For that reason, some horrible things happened, horrible deeds were done and horrible things were said.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who are anxious to preserve good race relations in this country are also anxious to prevent a situation in which we will have limited control over the admission of people from third-world countries to this country. We are well aware that there is a huge demand from people in third-world countries to come here because of economic considerations, although those are not as vital during a time of great depression, and because of the bonds between the United Kingdom and parts of the third world. Every hon. Member knows of the numbers of people from Bangladesh and Pakistan who want to come to this country because of our historic links and the successes of fellow citizens who have settled here. The Minister knows that if we did not have effective immigration controls the good relations that many people—including some Ministers in the Department—fight hard to maintain could be undermined.
Can the Government give us any indication of the advice that they will give to immigration officers if such a case should be taken to the European Court? We know that court decisions take about one year and all kinds of problems could arise during the deliberations. If, after one year, the decision went against the Government, what on earth would be the position of immigration officers and

Department officials who had refused entry to people in the meantime? Considerable damage could result. Considerable difficulties can arise in law if one deprives someone of something to which he is later found to be legally entitled. Can the Minister tell us what advice he will give to immigration officers if we were to lose such a case?
I have sat in this House for far too long not to appreciate that he and other Ministers must get fed up with people asking hypothetical questions. However, the Minister and officials at the Department are well aware that this is in no sense a hypothetical issue. The problem will arise, either because someone takes a case to the European Court, or because of the eventual agreement between the Government and Mr. Bangemann because of what is contained in article 7.
I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance about what he thinks will be the legal position of immigration officers while a court decision is being taken, and what Government policy will be if the decision goes against them, which I fear will be the case. That will pose a serious problem and I am sure that it worries Members on both sides of the House. We cannot run away from it.
Knowing the Minister as I do, I hope that he will make a statement now, rather than causing panic if such a case came to the European Court. How much better it would be for the Government to face up to the decision and to make an early statement about what they intend to do.
Knowing the Minister as I do and knowing of his integrity, as I said before—something that I have said of only one other Minister—I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously, will face up to it and will tell us, on behalf of the Government, about their approach to the issue.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is a man of considerable charm, but I am not used to his laying it on with a trowel in the fashion that he has just done. He is inviting me to speculate on a hypothetical situation—a case that he has dreamt up. I shall respond, as best I can, by saying where we are now, and I shall let him draw his conclusions and take what he will to the debates on Maastricht later this week and in following weeks. The Government will strongly resist any such case. On the back of expert legal advice, we are confident that we would be successful.
I shall make three points which may help my hon. Friend, although I appreciate that he is an expert on the Maastricht treaty. The House will be aware that only two immigration issues come within treaty competence: a common visa list will be established for member countries, as well as a standard visa format. Everything else to do with immigration which is sometimes debated in this House and elsewhere will come under the pillar of co-operation, with Immigration Ministers of the different countries meeting on a regular basis and seeking to harmonise their policies, but not seeking to establish a standard set of policies.

7 pm

Mr. Fraser: Are we not being a little misled? Is there not a provision in the Maastricht treaty to the effect that a majority, which could exclude the United Kingdom, could impose a visa restriction when, in the words of that treaty, there is a threat to entry to the Community?

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that, but, in terms of the practical arrangements for our normal day-to-day immigration controls, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the two features I have outlined will come within treaty competence. However, I accept the advice that the hon. Gentleman has offered to the House.
I should like to raise two more points in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and then I shall consider the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
Undoubtedly the Commission has a different interpretation of these matters and we dispute its interpretation of article 8A. We are absolutely clear that it does not apply to third-country nationals—people from non-EC countries—who were at the crux of the hypothetical situation which my hon. Friend described. We shall continue to maintain the check on the identity of all passengers coming into the United Kingdom to establish whether they are third-country nationals or not.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) frequently reminded us in Committee, we are not a member of the Schengen group. However, we applaud the efforts made by the nine EC countries which are members of it to improve their frontier controls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East rightly said, those countries face huge problems with their long land-locked borders and controls are difficult. That is another reason why we shall continue to hold to our interpretation of article 8A and maintain our checks on non-EC nationals.
The hon. Member for Norwood spoke of allegations that some asylum applicants have been physically prevented from gaining access to an immigration officer to make their application. The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern that people who come to this country wishing to claim asylum should have an unfettered opportunity to do so.
I am aware that it has been alleged that, in some cases, passengers have been prevented from disembarking or from approaching immigration control. I assure the House, as I assured the Committee on the same subject, that the Government would not condone such behaviour. Immigration officers have clear instructions that a person who claims asylum while on United Kingdom soil must have his or her application referred to the asylum division of the Home Office.
I am pleased to say that there is no evidence that immigration officers have been involved in unauthorised removals, which would be contrary to their instructions. Having said that, I very much doubt that the creation of the new criminal offence, as proposed in the new clause, would be an appropriate response to that issue.
It is equally unacceptable that airlines should seek physically to prevent a passenger from approaching immigration control. Once the passenger has arrived in the United Kingdom, it is too late for the airline to ask itself whether it should have carried that passenger.
I must take issue with subsection (2) of the new clause, which says that an offence would be committed even if the act in question took place outside the United Kingdom. That would be an extraordinary extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction and, in any case, it would not be enforceable. I assume that it is intended to render the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 unworkable, because airlines would argue that they were prevented from denying boarding to undocumented passengers.
I have already made clear, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier today, that we shall abide by our obligations under the 1951 convention in relation to people who have arrived in this country and who seek our protection. There is no obligation upon us, however, to facilitate the passage of that person to the United Kingdom. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Norwood allowed, it is frequently the pattern these days that passengers do not embark for the United Kingdom directly from the country of alleged persecution; they first find their way to a country of transit.
The new clause would effectively render the 1987 Act unworkable, and for that reason I urge the House to reject it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

PERIOD OF NOTICE AFTER NOTICE OF DECISION TO APPEAL

`.—(1) No rule made by virtue of Schedule 2 of this Act shall provide for a notice of appeal against an asylum decision to be given, unless it provides for a period of ten days after receiving notice of the decision to give notice of appeal.

(2) Asylum decision in this section means a decision to refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom or to remove a person from the United Kingdom or to refuse to vary the leave of a person in the United Kingdom, or to make a decision to deport, or to refuse to revoke a deportation order, or to refuse entry clearance to the United Kingdom where the grounds of appeal are that the decision is contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention.

(3) Where the Secretary of State has given a certificate under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act the period of ten days shall be read as a period of five days.'.—[Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 24, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
'(4)(A)(1) The time limit for giving notice of any appeal shall be no less than 10 days unless the Secretary of State has certified that in his opinion the person's asylum claim is without foundation.
(2) In the event that he shall so certify, the time limit shall be 2 days provided that the person is in detention and has submitted a claim for asylum on arrival to an immigration officer.'.
No. 25, in page 13, line 33, leave out from 'he' to 'refer' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Blair: The new clause and the amendments raise two issues: first, when the accelerated procedure for lodging appeals arises under the legislation—in other words, the 48–hour rule—and, secondly, whether that time limit is sufficient for those with appeals to be able to lodge them properly.
In respect of the first issue, the category of cases to which the 48–hour rule applies, the intention of the Government was put on the record in Committee when the Minister made it clear that the accelerated procedure—the fast-track procedure—for hearing appeals should apply only to port entry cases where the person was in detention and the Secretary of State had certified the claim as groundless. It was made clear that those two preconditions should apply. That is somewhat at odds with the explanation of the legislation given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but we will let that pass.
The problem is that the interpretation and intention of the Government is by no means clear from the legislation and the rules themselves. Rule 5(2) of the draft appeal rules states:
The time limit for giving notice of appeal shall be two days in a case where the appeal is made under section 7(1) of this Bill.
Clause 7(1) applies in any case where there has been personal service on the appellant of the notice of decision. On the face of it, the combination of the rules plus clause 7 means that this accelerated procedure applies in any circumstance when notice of the decision is served personally. As I understand it, the Government's answer to that is that, as a matter of practice, it will apply only to those in detention and, again as a matter of practice, the only people detained will be those whose claims are deemed groundless. Therefore, the Government say that the practical effect of their procedure is that the accelerated procedure will apply only to those with groundless claims who are in detention.
I should be grateful if the Minister would address the following two points. First, the limitation on the plain meaning of the rules and the clause is not stipulated anywhere in the rules. Secondly, it does not appear to accord with practice. I am advised, and I have checked with a number of those operating in this area, that some people are detained even though their claims are not groundless, while some are served notices personally even though they have neither been detained nor are their claims groundless. The notion that this applies in practical circumstances—that personal service is effected only on those in detention whose claims have been certified as groundless—does not appear to be the case. Some notices arc served personally even though that applicant is neither in detention nor is his claim groundless.
If the Government's intention is clear and not in dispute. the simple solution would be to alter the rules to ensure that the stated intention accords with the precise letter of the rules. Since it is now three months since this matter was first raised on Second Reading, I should have thought that the Minister would be able to give us an undertaking about the rules and their nature.
The other issue on which I seek clarification is the time limit. I do not want to go back over the territory that we explored in relation to clause 6, but it has become increasingly clear from debates in Committee and in the House that when we talk about an accelerated procedure weeding out bogus claims, in reality the term "bogus" is a misdescription and a particularly pejorative one. Claims will be made in good faith but will concern the category of people who, although not strictly refugees under the United Nations convention, are in fear of their lives because they are fleeing from civil distress, civil war or some other calamity.
The two days for the accelerated procedure has been criticised by many of those who operate in that area. It has also been criticised by the Law Society, the Bar Council, churches, and experts on and representatives of refugee groups. As there is a procedure for that time limit to be extended, our amendment extending the two-day period to five days is not unreasonable.
I draw the Minister's attentition to the strong case that was made in the other place, when the matter was debated before the general election. Lord Ackner said that if the

appeal procedures are truncated and there is insufficient time for people to prepare and launch an appeal satisfactorily, the only danger that we face is an increase in the number of applications for judicial review. That is a much more protracted and costly process and would slow down the procedure for determination. If there were a possibility of that happening as result of shortening the appeal period, it would not be in the interests of applicants, the Government or those with a view of the public interest.
Will the Minister respond, first, to the time limit, which we believe is too short to allow proper preparation of the case, and, secondly, ensure that the draft appeal rules are brought into accordance with the Government's stated intentions so that there can be no mistake about people's rights or to whom the accelerated procedure will apply?

Mr. Charles Wardle: First, I give the assurance which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seeks. I confirm that the draft rules will be amended in accordance with the undertakings that I gave in Committee. If those who are detained are refused but it is deemed that their case is not groundless, the accelerated timetable will not apply, so there will be a longer period. 1 hope that that clarifies another point which the hon. Gentleman raised.
New clause 4 and amendment No. 24 deal with time limits for bringing appeals and the accelerated procedure for certain unfounded cases. Although the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that he was reluctant to go back over that ground, I hope that he will be patient with me if I cover a little of it rapidly with the aim of clarification.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 sets up a special procedure for appeals against refusal of entry, refusal to revoke a deportation order or directions for removal as an illegal entry where the Secretary of State certifies the asylum claim to be without foundation. Where a special adjudicator agrees with that view, there is no further appeal to the tribunal. Where he does not agree, he may either allow or dismiss the appeal or he may refer the case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.
In addition, the draft procedure rules contain a provision for a shorter time limit for lodging an appeal against refusal of entry—two days instead of 10—where the notice of refusal is served in person. In practice, that means that the applicant will be detained. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear on Second Reading that this shorter time limit is intended to apply only in cases where the claim is certified to be without foundation and I confirm that that will be incorporated into the draft procedure rules when they are revised.
Amendment No. 24 correctly summarises the position in which the shorter time limits will apply. However, time limits are appropriately dealt with in the procedure rules, rather than the primary legislation.
New clause 4 is misconceived in a number of ways. For example, it includes in the definition of an asylum decision a refusal of entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. The Bill does not confer a right of appeal to a special adjudicator against refusal of entry clearance, since a person must be in the United Kingdom to claim asylum here.
Amendment No. 25 would require a special adjudicator who disagreed with the Secretary of State's view that a claim was without foundation to refer the case back for reconsideration rather than allowing or dismissing the appeal. In most such cases reference back will be the


appropriate course as there will not have been substantive consideration of the claim—for example, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considers the claim not to engage our obligations under the convention because it is proposed to remove the appellant to a safe third country. In cases where there has already been substantive consideration of the claim, however, the special adjudicator may have before him the necessary information to enable him to dismiss or allow the appeal and there is no good reason to prevent him from doing so.
I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause and both amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 290.

Division No. 106]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Ron Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Austin-Walker, John
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beckett, Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gerrard, Neil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, John


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wallace, James


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Bates, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter






Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hicks, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hague, William
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm





Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Steen, Anthony


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stephen, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Streeter, Gary


Norris, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sykes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Redwood, John
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Sir Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

CREDIBILITY OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS

'Notwithstanding anything in any asylum or immigration rule, the credibility of an asylum-seeker may not be judged by reference to any of the following grounds—

(a) a failure to make immediate disclosure of all material facts;
(b) the destruction of documents;
(c) a failure to apply forthwith;
(d) political activities in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause refers to the credibility tests that will apply to people applying for political asylum. It is another example of law being made outside the parliamentary process. It is deplorable that the draft immigration rules do not appear on the face of the Bill. They are important to people applying for political asylum and it should not be left to us to devise ways of discussing them in the House. They should be in the Bill, so that those who want to can ask questions about them.
7.30 pm
The rules list the criteria that can be taken into account when dealing with asylum applications. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office has made its position quite clear. It is of the opinion that the draft provisions
do not ensure the full implementation of the 1951 Convention [relating to the status of refugees] in the United Kingdom and some of them appear to vary from internationally adopted principles relating to asylum and the protection of refugees.'
That is a clear warning to the Home Office that its proposals may not meet international standards. It is not even clear why the Home Office thought many of these proposals necessary in the first place.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to the moves towards European harmonisation, although he did not seem too keen to introduce an element of European accountability to this matter. It appears that the United Kingdom is adopting a tougher line than are many of our European partners. In an interesting exercise the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants compared the text of the draft immigration rules with the text of the resolution adopted by the ad hoc group of European Immigration Ministers. There are a number of revealing comparisons between the allegedly hard-line attitude of some European countries and the actual words used by the ad hoc group of Ministers—words with a softer ring to them than many of the phrases that appear in our immigration rules.
The ad hoc group resolution mentions an asylum seeker who has
deliberately made false representations about his claim. either orally or in writing, after applying for asylum".
The words "deliberately" and "after applying for asylum" do not appear in the English text. Throughout the ad hoc group's document one is aware of more qualifications and greater sensitivity in what is, after all, a brutal political area. Far from harmonising our rules with those of Europe, it seems that we are bringing our European partners down to our level—that level being the lowest common denominator.
One of the conditions in the rules is that the applicant
has made false representations, either orally or in writing".
That provides no safeguards for asylum seekers and does not mention the motivation that may have been behind untrue statements. So the Home Office could decide to refuse an application merely because of its own misunderstanding that a false representation had been made. Further, there are no time limits on this, so it would mean that the person who had sought entry as a visitor because he did not understand the procedures for claiming asylum, and who had therefore maintained that he would leave the country after a visit, could be refused on credibility grounds.
The Home Office notes to the rules also state:
Self-evidently, if the applicant has been shown to have lied on specific points there will be more general doubt about his story",
but there is no explanation of the reasons why many asylum seekers do not feel secure enough to reveal all the details of their suffering immediately after meeting an official.
The second criterion is that an applicant has
destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim".
That needs further examination. As it stands, the rule means that if a passport has been accidentally damaged,

that can be held against the applicant. There is no requirement to show that the damage occurred deliberately. The Home Office notes assume that such damage is always deliberate so as to make it more difficult to remove people if their applications are refused. The other assumption is that passports may be re-used by agents helping other people to escape. Some asylum seekers are badly advised by agents before reaching the United Kingdom.
The third criterion reflecting on the credibility of an application is that the applicant
has lodged concurrent applications for asylum in the United Kingdom or in another country".
An interesting example of recent pedigree would be that of someone who has lodged an application in Germany and whose close family members have either reached another country or been granted asylum there because of the dangers that they faced in their first country of asylum. Such people may have been persecuted by racist gangs in east Germany, for instance. How might such cases be dealt with in practice?
Another criterion concerns
failure to comply with a notice issued by the Secretary of State requiring the applicant to report to a designated place to be fingerprinted".
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) may want to comment on that shortly. The rules go on:
or failure to complete an asylum questionnaire, or failure to comply with a request to attend an interview concerning the application".
At first sight these last criteria appear relatively innocuous —but a requirement to be fingerprinted has nothing to do with the substantive nature of an asylum claim. The Home Office frequently writes to the wrong address or gives inadequate notice of interview or fails to provide an interpreter. Such circumstances should not be held against applicants. The rules will mean that asylum seekers will be penalised for factors unconnected with the strength of their claims; and people who have followed bad advice or who have genuinely lost documents will find their cases prejudiced and may be returned to danger.
It is therefore vital that the rules be amended at least to provide the minimal protections suggested in the ad hoc group's resolution. At best, these restrictions should be removed altogether so that each claim can be considered on its merits.
The UNHCR suggests that it is not advisable
to list … the factors which should be given special consideration when assessing an asylum-seeker's credibility. Evaluation of credibility is a process which involves the consideration of many complex factors, both objective and subjective, which are impossible to enumerate. Since all these may be equally important, singling out any of these factors will, by necessity, be incomplete and arbitrary.
New clause 5 is designed, in short, to make it clear that we should not attempt to define applicants' credibility by such arbitrary means. We believe that these are questions of judgment and that if we introduce such rules, mistakes can be made and people will be excluded. Given that these are matters of life or death, the significance of such exclusions must be plain for all to see.

Mr. Corbyn: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and to ask the House to think seriously about what he has said. It is often not understood in this House—and certainly not in most newspapers—what it is like for someone who seeks political asylum. Many such people feel a sense of defeat


because they have had to flee from their own country to seek a new life elsewhere and transfer their energies into a different society. Many of them have to travel in great danger.
The history books record the heroic deeds of people who sought asylum and those who escaped from religious persecution in the middle ages in western Europe. Many people fled from Nazi Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and from Fascist Spain in the late 1930s and 1940s. More recently, people had to leave South Africa or flee from oppressive regimes in central and south America or Africa. People have had to flee from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There are numerous other examples. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary would listen to the debate on the new clause rather than gossiping with his hon. Friends. Presumably he is discussing football results. He should take seriously my description of what it is like for people who seek political asylum because he makes the decisions and he framed the legislation.
The new clause seeks to remove the destruction of documents, failure to disclose all material facts, failure to apply immediately or political activities in the United Kingdom as bases upon which an application may be refused. Let us consider the case of someone who has been consistently opposed to the regime in Iran. He is forced to live and work underground and to change his name and identity. He manages to flee the country, often paying people to guide him at night, and arrives in Peshawar in Pakistan. He then seeks to buy an identity and to travel to a place of safety in another part of the world. That example is based on an actual case.
When that person finally arrives at, say, Heathrow, he would be loth to reveal all that information. He would seek to enter Britain as a visitor before considering with friends the next step and would apply for political asylum. The fact that such a person does not make an immediate application and has destroyed all evidence of his identity on the way here would be detrimental to his case. He would have destroyed that evidence by throwing documents away, flushing them down a toilet, tearing them up or burning them. People do such things because they are frightened and want to get away to a place of safety. If someone carried such documents during his night time journey in Iran, he would be liable to arrest, detention and possible execution and his family, relatives and friends could suffer a similar fate.
I mentioned political activities in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and others represent a rather curious lunatic element in the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman is not here, but I shall later tell him what I have said about him as I am sure he would be interested to hear it. Political activity in Britain is detrimental to a person's chances of gaining political asylum. Is it so wrong for someone seeking political asylum from a repressive regime to undertake peaceful political activities against that regime? I see nothing wrong with that if he had been consistently opposed to that regime throughout the time that he lived under it.
I know people who have been asked by the immigration service what they had been doing in this country to oppose the regime from which they had fled. They said that they had not done much because they were worried about their

position. That was counted against them. The new clause seeks to make clear and specific what can or cannot be used in forming a judgment of an asylum seeker's credibility. I hope that no hon. Member will ever have to seek political asylum.
7.45 pm
Many refugees have made enormous contributions to science, art, literature, politics and medicine. Many such people hold senior positions in the health service and in universities and other places both here and in the United States. Many of them sought political asylum, but if the judgments outlined in the Bill had operated in the 1930s, many would not have been granted political asylum. If such judgments had been used against people fleeing from Chile in 1973, they would not have gained asylum. There are many other examples.
The new clause would make the legislation more credible and would lead to a greater understanding of the needs of people seeking political asylum because it would ensure that decisions were based on the entire experience of the asylum seeker. Many people have grown up in a society in which people have been taught to mistrust officialdom in any form because it does not work for their benefit and to mistrust anyone in uniform because he may have taken part in attacks or murders of family members. Political asylum seekers with such experiences are unlikely to reveal their entire life story at the first point of entry; such people are often psychologically disturbed and would be incapable of doing so anyway.
We seek to ensure that all such factors are taken into account and that officers conducting interviews do not try to extract all the information at the first point. People must be given a chance to recover from the nightmare of the journey and the reality of the escape. They should be allowed to consider their situation and their safety and that of their families and friends who may still be living under a totalitarian regime. Unhappily, the world contains far too many such regimes and many countries in western Europe and the United States support them economically and militarily. We should think of the wider implications of what we say and do. I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of the arguments for the new clause.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about some genuinely harrowing cases to which he has alluded in the debate and raised more than once in Committee. I hope that he appreciates that the Bill will enable us to move more swiftly through unfounded cases so that we can deal more rapidly with precisely the sort of harrowing case that he describes. As I said earlier, about 75 per cent. of those who apply for asylum have already established themselves here as visitors or in some other way.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will appreciate, the rules that he criticised have to be laid before Parliament and if prayed against can be debated and, in theory, can be disapproved. The new clause is misconceived and impractical, as I shall seek to explain. It would undermine the provisions of the draft rules relating to credibility. There are several reasons for the way in which the factors are set out in the rules.
First, the rules make clear to applicants and advisers and to those determining the claim the factors that may be considered important. In Committee, Opposition Members frequently asserted that an asylum seeker


arriving here may be unfamiliar with our procedures and may not know what is important and what is not in presenting his case. The rules form a useful guide to the points that may be deemed of interest. Secondly, the rules are drafted to address quite specific problems of which we have become aware through vast experience of processing claims.
Let me give one or two examples. The first is of a person who applies for asylum only after several unsuccessful attempts to extend his or her stay in some other capacity and having exhausted all other rights of appeal under the normal immigration laws, or where there has been no change in the situation in the country of origin. Another is of the person whose story changes markedly when he is confronted with a rebuttal of part of his original story, which changes several times more with each successive interview. Another is of the person who destroys identification documents en route to, or after entering, the United Kingdom in order to delay removal. I understand that that will happen for other reasons, as the hon. Member for Islington, North has pointed out.
We fully appreciate the importance of an asylum claim and of making the right decision. For those reasons, it is vital that all the relevant factors of a case are examined. The general credibility of the applicant is crucial to the eventual decision. Therefore, it is somewhat unworldly to suggest that certain key factors should be taken entirely out of the frame and should play no part in reaching the final decision. It is surely natural to question why a person who has been here for two years suddenly makes an asylum claim in the absence of any obvious changes in his circumstances.
I have stressed on many occasions, and I am pleased to do so again, that the draft rules are framed in conditional language. Some factors may count against an applicant if no reasonable explanation is given. If a credible explanation is forthcoming, applicants may considerably enhance the strength of their claim to asylum. However bizarre the behaviour may have been, if there is a credible explanation, that will be taken into account, and so it should be.
However, it is simply not an option to ignore the fact that someone has deliberately sought to hide his identity or the fact that he has taken part in political activities in which he has never previously taken an interest and thereby placed himself in a particularly difficult situation. It is not unreasonable to explore such behaviour and seek explanations of it as part of the overall assessment of the case. That is what the draft rules provide for. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject new clause 5.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3

FINGERPRINTING

Mr. Mike Watson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 20, leave out from line 20 to line 47 on page 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
No. 5, in page 2. line 3, at end insert
'; except that no claimant or dependant under the age of 16 years shall be fingerprinted.'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 3, at end insert

'; except that the claimant of dependant under the age of 18 shall not be fingerprinted unless in the presence of their parent or guardian or social worker.'.
Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
No. 28, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
`(11) Where a child under 16 years of age is an asylum seeker or is the dependent of an asylum seeker, an appropriate adult shall be present during the fingerprinting procedure; and an "appropriate adult" is a parent or guardian, advocate, social worker aged 18 or over and who is not employed by the police or immigration services'.'

Mr. Watson: Of all the clauses in the Bill, clause 3 is seen by Opposition Members and many outside as the most offensive. That is one reason why it was vigorously opposed and resisted in Committee. Despite some minor concessions squeezed from the Minister, which appear in the form of four Government amendments, the Opposition are no more convinced than they were when the Bill was first published that fingerprinting of asylum seekers and their relatives is anything other than a denial of basic civil liberties.
Amendment No. 4 offers the Government an honourable escape from the opprobrium that has been heaped upon them by the simple device of deleting the whole clause from the Bill. That would be the easy way out, although we do not anticipate that the Government will accept it, and it would go some way to easing the fears of a wide range of organisations and concerned individuals who have expressed their disgust at the relish with which the Home Secretary and his colleagues appear to wish to criminalise every man, woman and child who arrives on our shores seeking sanctuary.
It is no use the Home Secretary doing what his Minister did in Committee and consoling himself with the thought that fingerprinting is not a humiliating process or, as the Minister said, an unpleasant one. People associate fingerprinting with criminality in this country because hitherto only those charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence have been forced to submit to it. When this odious Bill becomes law, the situation will be dramatically changed and, on a wide-ranging basis, fingerprinting will be carried out on every asylum seeker.
Opposition Members stressed consistently, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that the provision is not even necessary because the powers that it will bestow already exist. Under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, fingerprinting is carried out when an offence has been committed or, in some circumstances, when a person is charged with an offence.
I see that I have the honour of facing the Home Secretary this evening. I do not know whether he believes that all asylum seekers would be criminalised by the introduction of fingerprinting, but that is not of much significance. What is important is that those facing the fingerprinting process will feel that they have been criminalised, will feel guilty, and will feel that they have to prove themselves innocent when they arrive here. Perhaps even more importantly, the people of Britain will view such people as criminals because that is the way in which we customarily view those who are subjected to fingerprinting. Only rarely have people been fingerprinted and then not been charged with a fairly serious offence. That is undoubtedly how it will be perceived by the British people.
It may be that that latter point serves the Government's overall strategy which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in the opening debate, has been


aimed at characterising all applicants as frauds, scroungers or impostors. It is assumed that their applications are bogus. Only on rare occasions are people treated at face value when they arrive here. The situation will worsen dramatically once the Bill becomes law.
Any country that claims to be a democracy should be able to offer asylum seekers more than that assumption when they arrive at its shores. Neither I nor my colleagues have ever argued, either here or in Committee, that there are not some instances of people applying for asylum in a less-than-honest manner. Sometimes there are multiple claims. That has always happened. What we are talking about here is the scale of the problem. Our argument has always been that the scale fails to justify the knee-jerk reaction embodied by the Bill.
Furthermore, it comes nowhere near justifying the universal assumption of guilt being applied to each and every asylum seeker. I do not believe for a moment that much of this will make any impression on the Home Secretary or his colleagues. They have set out their stall clearly. Many of them were involved with the Asylum Bill that was debated last year. Their aim has been clear, and in Committee they have wavered only slightly.
This is a modest amendment in the face of widespread opposition both inside and outside the House. The latest event in that process is what we are seeing this afternoon, with the effective lobby organised by the anti-racist alliance, as a result of which many people were here lobbying their Members of Parliament. I am sure that Conservative Members felt the sharp end of the tongues of many who feel themselves and their families threatened by the Bill.
That process has gone on for several months and doubtless will continue even after the Bill is on the statute book. It is unfortunate that the Government have failed to take account of the widespread views of people, but once they have set their course, they sit back rigidly to fight rather than listening to the arguments put by others.
One of the minor concessions made by the Minister in Committee was his promise of what he called a "tighter form" of words in terms of who will be permitted to fingerprint asylum seekers. The wording is rather loose, with its references to other persons, apart from policemen, immigration officers and prison officers, being permitted by the Home Secretary to take fingerprints. We pressed the Minister strongly on that and, although Government amendment No. 29 clarifies the procedure and goes some way towards restricting those who can become involved, it is not clear what it meant. The amendment states that persons other than those to whom I referred—policemen, immigration officers and prison officers—are officers of the Secretary of State. However, all those people are already officers of the Secretary of State, and it is not clear why the other category is needed. I do not understand why it has to be left so vague. The Minister said in Commitee that he did not imagine that the practice would be applied widely. If that is so, why not restrict it to the three categories which, reasonably, have been included in some detail?
8 pm
Those who framed the 1991 Bill, when the previous Conservative Government were in office, did not seek to drag into the net of fingerprinting the relatives of asylum seekers. Yet this Bill seeks to cast the net considerably wider to ensnare the dependants of asylum seekers.
In Committee, my hon. Friends and I left the Minister in no doubt about the consequences of clause 3. Indeed, we highlighted in considerable detail the effect that it would have on children. I do not propose to go into that detail again because it would seem that we advanced our arguments to little avail. Some sympathy was forthcoming, however, from some Conservative Members in Committee. It is fair to say that some of them participated in debates on the clause. None the less, I regard the Government's concession to be of little value.
My hon. Friends and I argued in Committee that children should be excluded from fingerprinting, and we talked about children of certain ages. The Government's amendment does not represent an attempt to meet our arguments and it is clear that they remain resolute in their aim to exclude no children.
I find little solace in the Minister saying, in effect, that it is not the Government's intention routinely to fingerprint children. Under the Bill, any child who arrives at our shores can be fingerprinted if those who receive the child feel that that is necessary. The door that faces those who arrive in the United Kingdom is open far too wide. Unfortunately, the Minister's undertaking to produce an amendment to meet our fears has not been fulfilled. Government amendment No. 30 provides that children under the age of 16 years who are fingerprinted should be accompanied by someone who is termed to be
a person of full age who is not an authorised person.
That is a welcome concession, but it does not go far enough. It means that all children will or can be fingerprinted. It goes only part of the way to allaying our fears. Further, it goes only part of the way to meeting the commitment that my colleagues and I believe that the Minister entered into when he responded to the debates on fingerprinting in Committee.
The Government's amendment does not define who the accompanying adult should be. My hon. Friends and I and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) introduced amendments in Committee which were considerably more detailed and referred exactly to who the accompanying adult should be. Under the Government's definition of who an "authorised person" should be in amendment No. 29, it follows that any adult apart from those referred to who happened to be passing at the time could, in theory, be asked by the officers of the immigration authorities to witness the fingerprinting of a child under the age of 16. The only people excluded are the officers of the Secretary of State. In theory, anyone else could be brought in as a witness.
Surely that is unsatisfactory. That is leaving aside Muslim girls and women who, due to their religion, could become most distressed on being faced with fingerprinting by a man or by being accompanied by a male person. If a child is to be accompanied, and if the provision is to have any meaning, the accompanying adult should be the parent or guardian. It should be a person who the child knows. At the very least, it should be someone who has experience of asylum legislation, of some aspects of social


work care and of the feelings of children in what will be inevitably a distressing situation, quite apart from the actual fingerprinting.
We are disappointed with the Government's response. There must be some assurance that the person accompanying the child will provide some reassurance to the child. It should be someone in whom the child can have some confidence and feel able to turn to in what will be a difficult situation.
In contrast to Government amendment No. 30 there is amendment No. 28, which offers a much more useful definition of the sort of person who should be permitted to accompany a child in these circumstances. It should be made clear that the accompanying person should have some knowledge of child welfare and of asylum procedures. It is made clear in amendment No. 28 who the accompanying adult should be. The amendment is consistent with the views that were expressed by many Opposition Members in Committee. To provide that someone should be an authorised person and not to go any further fails to secure what we regard as the safeguards that are necessary to build confidence in a child. The Home Secretary must make clear why he feels that Government amendment No. 30 is adequate in that context. It would have been far better if children below the age of 16 had been excluded. That has not happened, and that is regrettable.
The impression that has been gained by my colleagues and I is that the Government failed to appreciate the situation that will face children who are fingerprinted. There has been no adequate explanation of why the Bill requires children to be fingerprinted when the previous Bill did not. The Government have failed to give serious thought to the awkward position in which they are placing children.
The Government are over-reacting in believing that it is necessary to go to such lengths. The provisions in clause 3 are distasteful. Our relations with other European countries may lead to certain obligations—in other words, we are seeing an alarming drift. I was not assured by the responses of the Minister in Committee about the exchange of computerised information that may take place on asylum seekers. It will become increasingly difficult for people outwith the European Community to enter any of the EC countries, and that is a matter of great regret. The clause cuts across what has been seen in some senses as a commitment by the United Kingdom to many parts of the developing world, not least those which were part of the Commonwealth.
The amendments highlight the Government's insensitivity to the needs of asylum seekers when they come to the United Kingdom and the Government's failure to grasp their obligations under international conventions. We debated at length in Committee the 1951 convention, which should be taken into account, and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which would outlaw the taking of fingerprints if the Government were prepared to be bound by it in relation to the inhumane and cruel treatment that the convention seeks to circumscribe. It is not surprising that the Government have decided not to be so bound, but it is regrettable. We oppose most vigorously the Government's fundamental approach to fingerprinting.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Much was said in Committee—the argument has been advanced again this

evening—to the effect that fingerprinting is associated with criminality. But I was fingerprinted when my car was broken into. That was done to ensure that my prints were excluded from any others on the car. When my grandparents' home was the scene of a robbery, they were fingerprinted to exclude them from any possibility of being associated with the prints of those who broke into the house. There are, therefore, aspects of fingerprinting that are good, to which no credence is given by Opposition Members.
When I was in the United States last year I saw many children—they were accompanied by mums or other members of the family—who were lining up voluntarily to have their fingerprintes taken because of the rising problem [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will agree to listen the second time around. They may learn something this time. Children were being fingerprinted because of the rising incidence of child abduction. The fingerprint records mean that such children can be traced at a later date. People thought such fingerprinting to be a good idea. In the culture of the United States—indeed; in our culture too—if someone has his fingerprints taken it does not necessarily mean that he has committed a criminal act, or even that people might think that he had done so.

Mrs. Roche: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Does he think that there is a difference between parents in the United States accompanying their children during fingerprinting as part of a voluntary exercise, and the horror felt by children who are fleeing persecution, civil war or torture and are confronted by figures in authority—however kind or benevolent—who insist on taking their fingerprints?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. I have tried to show that the act of fingerprinting does not necessarily mean that the person has committed a criminal act. I recognise the trauma of refugees coming to this country, but surely having their fingerprints taken would be one of the least worrying acts that they will have faced during the past four, five or 10 years. People flee from their own countries because of persecution, so having their fingerprints taken in this country would be the least of their concerns.
I believe that the Government's amendment will he beneficial. In Committee many of my hon. Friends made known their concern that someone in uniform might, in certain circumstances, worry some refugees. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has dealt with that specific point and we are grateful to him for that. We have no qualms about his amendment. Opposition Members have blown the fingerprinting issue out of all proportion. Refugees coming to this country will have no cause for concern at having their fingerprints taken.

Mr. Maclennan: It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge that the Government have moved some way towards fulfilling their undertaking in Committee to introduce an amendment to deal with the problem of children being fingerprinted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) well described the limits of the Government's concession and properly drew attention to the doubt whether it goes far enough.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), may I say that one reason why people have focused on the fingerprinting issue is that there is a much


more widespread concern about the treatment of children in general under the Bill. During the Committee stage of this Bill and its predecessor, that concern was manifestly shown on all sides of the House, not least by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and other Conservative Members. I confess that I had hoped that the Government would recognise the advantage of supporting young children seeking asylum and that they would move some way towards the appointment of an advocate or social worker to look after them during consideration of their asylum applications. I still hope that that matter will be considered in another place.
These amendments inevitably are confined to the issue of fingerprinting. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that the way that the Government have drafted their amendment would open the door to inviting almost anyone—perhaps a secretary in the next office who is not technically an officer of the Secretary of State—to witness what was being done. That is not what lay behind the original proposition. We did not want to ensure that the circumstances were regular in a purely legal sense; we wanted to ensure that a young person, who might well be fleeing from the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, did not view the act of fingerprinting as a sign of hostility by those handling the case.
8.15 pm
A number of questions arise about the fingerprinting of children. The Minister said in Committee that he would consider specifying the locations where fingerprinting could take place. He said:
It is easier for all concerned if prints can be taken in a variety of suitable locations by trained personnel."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1992; c.194.]
There is no amendment on the Order Paper to put that statement into practice. It would be helpful if the Minister said again that that is the intention and that fingerprinting will be done only at a number of properly supervised locations—presumably, ports of entry, the immigration and nationality department, perhaps Home Office public inquiry offices—and that they will be taken only in connection with asylum applications. None of that has been spelt out in the primary legislation. Perhaps it is not important that it is, but it should certainly be clear beyond argument that that is the firm intention and policy of the Home Office.
I prefer the wording of amendment No. 28, which was tabled by myself and hon. Members from both sides of the House, to that of the Government amendment. However, I do not intend to press my amendment over the Government's amendment—at least, not until the Minister has explained why he has chosen such extraordinarily wide language to meet the concerns expressed in Committee and why he did not think it appropriate to ensure that the person who is to accompany a child is supportive in some way, and not merely a witness to the event.

Mr. Corbyn: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). There are serious concerns about the fingerprinting of asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) portrayed a picture of lines of

happy children in United States' supermarkets queueing up to be fingerprinted, having had the position fully explained to them. That may be true. However, in this country even when children are fingerprinted simply to eliminate them from inquiries—to protect them—they are worried about it. It has to be carefully explained to them why they must be fingerprinted. People allow themselves to be fingerprinted only with the greatest reluctance, even when it is in their own interests. The hon. Gentleman's example is not suitable as support for the case for fingerprinting children seeking political asylum. Most of them do not have English as their first language and they may not even speak it at all. Their only experience of fingerprinting will have been in extremely hostile and dangerous circumstances.
There is also the question why fingerprinting is being done in the first place. In Committee on both this and the original Bill, much concern was expressed about the effects of fingerprinting on children and why it need be done. The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), said:
Fingerprinting will maintain our system's integrity and help check cases where there is evidence of multiple social security claims … that is what it is intended to do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1991; c. 61.]
Those remarks related to the original Bill, which fell because of the onset of the general election.
The new Bill has brought the return of the whole fingerprinting issue. We were told repeatedly in Committee that the purpose of fingerprinting was nothing more than to check against multiple applications for political asylum, yet when introducing the Bill the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) spent a great deal of time explaining that multiple social security applications were the real reason for it. He could not provide details, state their total volume, or confirm the level of fraud. Happily, that individual has gone on to do nothing and is no longer a Government Minister—for which we are all grateful.
When the hon. Member for Fareham made his statement in Committee, I believe that he let the cat out of the bag. While the real purpose of introducing fingerprinting is to check against multiple applications, with the very existence of that fingerprinting bank in the Home Office, what is there to stop the Home Secretary's friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security—after reading exaggerated stories in the Daily Mail and other newspapers—deciding that it is necessary to check on social security fraud and to introduce a little Bill giving social security inspectors the right to fingerprint people during the course of their investigations, to eliminate them from inquiries?
The public take their civil liberties and the fingerprinting issue very seriously. I doubt that they accept that the Government amendments go anywhere near meeting the wide range of concerns and opinions expressed on Second Reading and in Committee.
All that has been said in answer to criticisms from the children's legal centre and a number of other organisations concerned with child welfare is that a suitable adult must be present during fingerprinting. Obviously, that is better than no adult or independent person being present—but it would be even better if there were no fingerprinting of children at all.
At no stage has the Home Secretary or his Ministers said what will be the minimum age for the fingerprinting


of children. We asked whether it would be 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, or 12 years of age—right down to children aged two or one, or even babies—but the Government were not prepared to state the lower age limit. Are we to permit the indignity of frightened children arriving in this country as asylum seekers being fingerprinted? That is on the cards.
I remind the House—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the fingerprinting provisions are retrospective. Some current asylum applicants arrived in this country three years ago or longer. I know of some applications that remain under consideration after five years. I do not complain about the length of time involved, because some applications require detailed examination and the collection of evidence. However, because of the retrospective nature of the Bill, those applicants—who arrived in this country long before the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary will also have to be fingerprinted.
I hope that the Minister appreciates that we are unhappy about the fingerprinting provision and do not accept that the Government's amendments go anywhere near meeting our objections. First, children should not be fingerprinted. It is wholly inappropriate, disturbing for the children, and unnecessary. The Government have not convinced me or anyone else of the need for fingerprinting other than as part of the process of curtailing individual rights by the creation of a central fingerprinting bank that can be used for other purposes.
Even if we cannot defeat this part of the Bill, I hope that it will be radically amended or defeated when it reaches another place, or will subsequently be ruled inadmissible because the Government are a signatory to other conventions—such as the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—which prohibit them from implementing this particularly nasty undertaking.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) graphically described why the Opposition object so strongly to the Bill's fingerprinting provision. The idea of fingerprinting children is the most abhorrent of all.
I listened with interest to the description by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of children being fingerprinted in the United States and of his experience of being fingerprinted in this country so that he could be eliminated from inquiries into a car crime. That was a perfectly natural and understandable use of fingerprinting of a kind that arises every day. There is, however, no way in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley can equate those harmless instances with the taking of fingerprints of children arriving in this country in a traumatised state.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, the Government have not imposed any minimum age on the fingerprinting of children. If the Government win the day and the fingerprinting of children is done in our name, that will bring shame on us all. That is the reason for our series of amendments. I would like no fingerprinting at all, but if that cannot be done, there should be no fingerprinting of children.
Amendment No. 28 has cross-party support, including support from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith). It seeks to ensure that if fingerprinting is to be undertaken, an appropriate adult—a parent, guardian, advocate or social worker—will be present. In

Committee, the difficuties affecting unaccompanied children arriving in the United Kingdom were described. The numbers are relatively small. In 1991, 128 children aged 16 or below applied for asylum on arrival—when they are often traumatised by conflict in their home countries. They may have suffered torture or bereavement.
Local authorities face many difficulties in catering for their needs—not least because it is impossible to predict their arrival, or their linguistic or cultural background. My own borough of Haringey experienced a number of cases of unaccompanied refugee children and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Islington, North have had similar experiences of these cases.
Such considerations led to a certain amount of cross-party support for a panel of advocates with statutory responsibilities for befriending children who have been through horrific traumas and for ensuring that they receive appropriate and co-ordinated services. That would apply to children living in the community as well as to those in local authority care and would extend to representing a child's interests in the determination of the process.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have read in the The Guardian today a persuasive letter signed by a wide range of children's organisations, including Save the Children Fund, Refugee Council, children's legal centre, Barnardo's and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Many other organisations concerned with children and with refugees also support the proposals.
That letter points out that,
at the moment, asylum law in the UK makes no distinction between adults and children … A small change to the current Asylum Bill would remedy that … and would be of great benefit to an extremely vulnerable group of children.
In Committee, amendments were withdrawn because the Government promised to discuss the matter with the Department of Health. Since then, we have heard nothing about the progress of those discussions. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would tell us how they are progressing; as I am sure he will appreciate, there is a great deal of interest in and support for the proposal on both sides of the House.
It is often said, in the Chamber and elsewhere, that a civilised society should be judged according to the way in which it treats children—not only children who are British citizens, but children who come to this country traumatised, frightened and threatened by what they have seen and experienced elsewhere. That is why our proposal is so important; and that is why it is so invidious even to contemplate fingerprinting children.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: At least the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) made it clear at the outset that the main purpose of amendment No. 4—the principal amendment in the group—was to remove the requirement for fingerprinting from the Bill altogether. The hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated that we would resist that proposal: we believe that it would largely destroy the measures that we have put together to combat misuse of the asylum system.
Let me begin by addressing the main question: why we have decided that we must take this power to fingerprint applicants. Our straightforward aim is to establish a system whereby we can identify individual applicants. We need to establish the exact identity of people who present


themselves—as people frequently do—with no documents at all, or with forged documents, to guard against multiple applications. Such applications may involve the same person applying in several different identities for the purpose of social security fraud—there is a substantial history of that and we have recently been tackling it—or the same person trying repeatedly, with a different story and in a different guise, to obtain entry.
If we are to establish the fair and proper system of assessing each asylum claim that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have described, we must first establish the identity of the applicant. Currently, nearly two thirds of asylum seekers at ports arrive either with no documents or with forged documents. In the second quarter of 1992—the latest period for which I have figures—46 per cent. of applicants had no documents at all, 14 per cent. had forged documents and 1 per cent. had mutilated documents. That represents nearly 300 asylum seekers a month arriving in the United Kingdom whose identities could not be satisfactorily established in any objective way.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave examples of why that might be. In our debates on the Bill, he has frequently given dramatic examples of escapes by persecuted people who felt the need to destroy their documents on the way. I acknowledge—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—that such cases can occur. I feel, however, that it is naive in the extreme to believe that nearly half the people who arrive at our ports seeking asylum have arrived there in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the vast majority do not turn up in a particularly distressed condition, having either destroyed the documents in the course of their journey or handed them back to the agent who arranged their provision so that they can be used by another applicant. Given that, for one reason or another, those people have arrived with no documents, it is surely not unreasonable to provide a straightforward, foolproof way of establishing their identity once they are here.
Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that a majority of applicants for asylum are already living here. They have entered the country on some other basis and, after they have been here for a while, have applied for asylum. Between one third and 50 per cent. of such applicants now present themselves without documents. The hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) have described traumatised people fleeing persecution. Many more people who come here claiming asylum have destroyed their documents—frequently on advice—simply to throw confusion into the system, believing that that will somehow help them to extend their stay here. We need a method of distinguishing the traumatised people seeking asylum from those who have destroyed their documents as a device to extend the time that dealing with their claim will take, and fingerprinting is the most straightforward method.

Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Home Secretary accept that people destroy documents, or try to hide their identities, because if it is known to the authorities that they have sought asylum in certain countries, their families are liable to be taken into custody and may be imprisoned or badly treated?
Will the Home Secretary also concede that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which he supported, encouraged the use of agents and the spiv culture because of the fines that it imposed on airlines? Is not that Act the main cause of the problem—although it recognised the need for people to use forged documents in the first place?

Mr. Clarke: We never disclose to the country from which an applicant has come that the applicant has made an asylum application, precisely to avoid reprisals in that country. It may be that a small proportion of those who destroy documents—for some reason best known to themselves—fear that somehow the news of their applications will get back to their own country, although I do not know why they should believe that.
Although we cannot specify the exact figures, I think that the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman represent a small minority. We all know that people who come here in the knowledge that they have no grounds for entry according to the rules are frequently advised to destroy their documents on the journey and to leave the aeroplane or port saying that they are asylum seekers in order to cause confusion and delay in this country. We also have considerable experience of multiple applications—by which I mean either the same person seeking asylum in several different identities to substantiate several social security claims, or the same applicant presenting himself with a variety of identities and a variety of stories.
At present, 1,600 cases of multiple application are under investigation. So far, 11 convictions have been obtained for fraud against the Department of Social Security. In one investigation, 15 individuals were found to have used 76 identities and to have obtained overpayment of £80,000 in benefits. The main defendant pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. In another investigation, five individuals were found to have used 19 identities and to have obtained overpayment of £50,000. One individual, with his wife and two children, has been identified as the subject of no fewer than 54 separate files in various identities. I think that that establishes sufficient reason—even on the ground of social security abuse alone —for wanting to establish specific identities.
The Opposition propose no measures to protect against multiple applications. They propose to allow people to present themselves with no identity checks of any validity. Internationalism has become important. Under the Dublin convention, we have agreed that asylum applications will be dealt with by the country to which the first application is made. There is plenty of experience of people presenting themselves to different countries with different identities trying to establish different claims. Our partner countries in the European Community, all of which have the same civilised values as ourselves towards asylum applications under the Geneva convention, are moving towards fingerprinting.
All Community countries, except Ireland, have the power to take fingerprints. France introduced a system of fingerprinting all asylum applicants in January 1990. When France introduced its system it found initially that almost a fifth of the applications involved false identities. When the Dutch introduced a fingerprinting system they found that 10 per cent. of the applications were multiple applications. The Opposition ignore all that. All that they talk about are traumatised people arriving at our ports, terrified of the country from which they come.
We have already established that 19 out of 20 applications in this country turn out not to be well founded when investigations are made. I have now revealed that a fifth of French applications for asylum are made under a false identity and that 10 per cent. of the Dutch applications are multiple applications. What protection do the Opposition urge against that? None whatsoever. They argue that we should not have this protection because the very fact of taking fingerprints is, somehow, criminalising, an argument with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) dealt very adequately.

Mr. Allen: Oh, dear. We have just heard the press release that has been drafted for The Sun and other newspapers tomorrow. The minuscule percentage of people whom the Secretary of State quoted as defrauding social security have been discovered under a system that does not use fingerprints. The question that I have for the Secretary of State, who is a reasonable man, is this: let him imagine that he is being politically persecuted and is fleeing for his life with his family and that to get out of the country he must obtain forged documents, perhaps from dubious sources, and that other members of his family have perhaps acquired dubious documents. What would the Secretary of State then do on the aeroplane?

Mr. Clarke: In such a case, I believe that under our proposed system we would grant that person political asylum.

Mr. Allen: Would the Secretary of State destroy the documents?

Mr. Clarke: No, I would not. I know that to destroy the documents would be of no earthly assistance in obtaining asylum and would add nothing to my story. I believe that our system identifies those people and that they would be given political asylum. I am sure that occasionally we make mistakes, but the circumstances in which such people are returned to a country where they face persecution are few and far between. I have not encountered one such case during my comparatively brief period as Home Secretary. They are not typical cases. I know that there are campaigns when such cases arise. I well remember the Sri Lankan who was holed up in a Manchester church. Although he was passionately believed in by those who campaigned on his behalf, his case turned out to be total nonsense.
The fact is that 19 out of 20 applications turn out not to fall within the description just given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. We have had cases of multiple applications. There have been spectacular frauds of the kind that I have just described. Other countries with the same values as ourselves which have introduced fingerprinting have discovered almost straight away that there have been large numbers of false and multiple applications.
What defence do the Opposition offer against that? None whatsoever. They continue to produce arguments as though 100 per cent. of those arriving here are fleeing from dictatorships and that they are in a traumatised state when they arrive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that three quarters of them have not arrived from anywhere. They are living here when they make the application.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The person to whom my right hon. and learned Friend referred was holed up in a Manchester church with the full authority of the bishop of Manchester and the curate. The curate went back to Sri Lanka with that person and found that there was no problem whatsoever. When he arrived in Sri Lanka the only people who met that person were members of the press—nobody else. He had no difficulties whatsoever.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that, like me, she does not traduce the sincerely held views of those who supported that man at the time. I encountered some of them. They all believed profoundly that they were protecting this man against persecution. What they proved guilty of was naivety in the extreme, a naivety that is frequently repeated by Opposition Members. They have conjured up for themselves this picture of men, women and children arriving here after torture in a traumatised and shocked state. They refuse to take the slightest notice of what we say: that three quarters of those people are already living here and that they said that they were visitors or students before they even made their application. They take not the slightest notice of the evidence we have of multiple applications and fraud, although they concede that there are unpleasant agents who batten on to these people and tell them that they can get them here, if they take advice about how to make an asylum application. They take not the slightest notice of experience in other countries where fingerprinting has been introduced and has exposed multiple applications. They offer no defence against abuse. They present a naive and emotional picture of the applicants and then resist the procedures that we put forward to protect this country against fraud.
It is said that fingerprinting is wrong because it means that people are accused of having committed a criminal offence. It does not mean that, unless that is what they are told. Children in particular will not think that, unless someone has told them so, which encourages them to believe it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly said, there can be few people in this House who have not given fingerprints at some stage in their lives. I have; my hon. Friend has. It depends for what purposes the fingerprints are asked. In this case it is perfectly clear to almost all the applicants that they are not being asked for fingerprints because they are being accused of a criminal offence but that it is in order to establish their identity when they—as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North says, for good reasons—have destroyed every other proof that they might have of who they are and where they come from. A system without any identity check has been proved to be porous in the extreme and not valid.
It is just possible that people will believe that they are being accused of a criminal offence. Therefore, we propose to present each applicant with a written notice explaining that they are not being singled out and that this is a routine fingerprinting test to establish identity and does not involve any allegation of crime. Without there being any serious suggestion as to how else to identify individual applicants and stop them turning up again using another name, or to stop them applying to every other country in Europe for asylum, using a different story, or to stop them making 10 claims so that they can have the benefit of 10 social security benefit entitlements, I believe that our


system is the right one to adopt. The Opposition will not face up to the fact that there are such people who bedevil the system for genuine asylum seekers who will benefit, if we get rid of all this nonsense and have a practical system that identifies who they are.

Mr. Madden: What puzzles me and a number of other hon. Members is why the Home Secretary wishes to extend the identification to fingerprinting when his Administration introduced what are called standard acknowledgment letters that include photographs and details of each asylum applicant, including their dependants. That is an adequate safeguard against social security fraud and multiple applications for political asylum. Why is the Home Secretary so enthusiastic about going down the fingerprinting route? I suspect that he gave the game away when he said that this had already been agreed as a general policy throughout the European Community. That I think is the truth. Why on earth does he not admit it?

Mr. Clarke: We are under no Community obligation, if that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks. We are following a practice that other European countries have followed, bar one. It is the only foolproof way of establishing identity. Photographs are not so foolproof. I have just returned from a visit to our entry clearance officers in the Indian subcontinent. I have seen at first hand the way in which applications for entry clearance or visitors' visas are being handled. It is a pity that more people cannot see the process. The criticisms and fears that have been expressed about the way in which applications are handled would be considerably allayed if people could see the professionalism and care with which they are entertained.
I saw cases of multiple applications. I saw a case of a man who undoubtedly was applying under the second identity that he had used in the past two to three years to find a fresh basis for settlement in the United Kingdom. One of the bases with which he was confronted was his photograph. The man in the photograph certainly looked like the same man to me and it looked like the same man to the clearance officer. The man said that it was his brother, thereby seeking to disclaim the close resemblance between the man in the photograph and himself. Subsequent questioning about his relationship with his brother and everything else rapidly revealed that he was talking a lot of nonsense. He was not able to answer the questions in a way which correlated with the answers that his so-called brother had given about the family.
Such cases do occur. A photograph is not an adequate defence. Fingerprints are straightforward and foolproof. It is not the case that the very act of taking fingerprints in all circumstances implies an accusation of crime. That argument is used by Opposition Members, but they do not do themselves credit when they use it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most people, certainly my constituents who have read about these matters in the newspapers, would be appalled by cases such as those listed by my right hon. and learned Friend of people who have made multiple applications so that they can defraud social security, which costs the country thousands of pounds? Most people would wholeheartedly welcome the measures being taken by the Government to prevent such fraud

from taking place in the future. The Government's measures will have the wholehearted support of the country.

Mr. Clarke: I do. I do not think that the support is confined, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North always tries to make out, to the redneck reactionaries in the United Kingdom.
Opposition Members pay lip service to the view. Of course, they are against bogus and multiple applications. I doubt whether any Opposition Member would defend somebody who enters the United Kingdom with 15 different identities and makes 15 different social security claims. Opposition Members say all the right things about such applications because they know that the view is held not just by shell-back reactionaries. All sensible members of the public know that we should take steps against multiple applications and social security fraud.
Every time the Government table a proposition to deal with the matter, Opposition Members are against it. They retreat into a Mickey Mouse, make-believe world in which everybody who applies for asylum in the United Kingdom is a traumatised victim of torture who arrives trembling on our shores. In so far as traumatised victims of torture arrive on our shores, we give them political asylum. Opposition Members should face up to the common sense of having a system which protects us against other people.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke: Before I give way I shall emphasise, the extent to which the Government have tabled amendments to meet some of the fears expressed, although we think that those fears are exaggerated.
Amendment No. 29 clarifies the classes of person who will be authorised to take the fingerprints of asylum seekers and their dependants. The powers will normally be exercised by civil servants in the asylum division of the Home Office or by immigration officers at ports. In some circumstances it may be necessary for the fingerprints to be taken by a police officer or prison officer. The wording in the amendment,
officer of the Secretary of State authorised for the purposes of this section
makes it clear that only Home Office civil servants will be so authorised, occasionally together with police or prison officers.
We do not anticipate having to fingerprint routinely every child. However, there is no particular reason why a child of 16 or younger should not be involved in somebody else's fraud plan. Indeed, children are frequently involved in such plans. It is just as important to establish the identity of children who may otherwise be presented under a variety of different identities. If we simply excluded the fingerprinting of all people under the age of 16, as amendment No. 5 suggests, there would be the danger of deciding the exact age of a child, which could create difficulties in some cases in which there is no documentation. In some cases children will be presented in multiple identities with different fraudulent claims.
We are persuaded that it should normally be necessary for somebody to be present to protect the child if he or she becomes frightened or to give some independent oversight of what is occurring. Hence, we have tabled amendment No. 30 to meet some of the concerns expressed in Committee.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department undertook to consider including in the Bill a requirement for an independent person to be present when a child is fingerprinted. Amendment No. 30 incorporates such a requirement. The amendment is drawn in wider terms than the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would like and an alternative amendment specifies rather more tightly the adult who should be present when a child is fingerprinted.
I accept that normally the child should be accompanied by the parents or guardian or, when a child is unaccompanied, a local authority social worker or a person from the refugee legal centre or some other suitable voluntary body. If such a requirement is prescribed tightly in the legislation, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would wish, the effect could be that on occasions it will be difficult to give effect to the requirement or it will cause more delay while someone in that category was obtained. A suitable independent volunteer may be required on occasions, outside any tight definition that we could devise. Therefore, we prefer the wording set out in amendment No. 30.
In this debate hon. Members have expressed concern about multiple applications and possible abuse of the system, but those who oppose the Government have not tabled any serious proposals of their own. Fingerprinting is a straightforward way of ensuring that we know the identity of each applicant. The applicant can then have the case fairly and properly considered. No one has any reason to fear adverse consequences as a result of being fingerprinted by our officials in the United Kingdom when they seek asylum. I ask the House to support the amendments that the Government have tabled and to resist amendment No. 4 and the other amendments tabled by Opposition Members.

Mr. Corbyn: With the leave of the House, I would like to say that the Home Secretary has failed to answer two questions. He has failed to say whether the Bill is likely to lead to the extension of the use of fingerprinting to, in his words, deal with social security frauds. All the cases of multiple applications and so on which the Home Secretary has quoted at length have all been discovered without the use of fingerprints. They have been discovered only by the use of photographic evidence which is available at present on the standard acknowledgement form, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said.
Secondly, the Home Secretary referred in a jocular fashion along with several of his hon. Friends to the case of Viraj Mendis. Many Opposition Members strongly supported his case at the time. He sought asylum in the Church of the Ascension in Manchester.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You were wrong.

Mr. Corbyn: We were not wrong, with respect to the hon. Lady. We were correct and honest at the time and we remain so.
Mr. Mendis spent 16 years in this country. He was eventually bundled out by the most enormous police phalanx I have ever seen in my life. He was dragged out of a church in the process. He spent a year in Sri Lanka. During that time he had to change his identity every several days. He had to go from hiding place to hiding place. His mother's house was surrounded by—

[Interruption.] I do not know why the Under-Secretary finds this so amusing. Mr. Mendis' mother's house was surrounded by jeeploads of armed police asking for him and looking for him. He managed to escape and change his identity yet again. He sought another place of safety and sanctuary in another part of Sri Lanka.
Mr. Mendis spent a year of absolute nightmare. The reason why he survived the death squads in Sri Lanka was that he had international support and friends in Sri Lanka. Six people went from Britain specifically to look after him in Sri Lanka during that year. If he was not in any danger whatever, why were so many people and organisations in Britain and in Europe so prepared to support his case? He has now been given permission to live in Germany. Yet he was refused asylum by the British Government.
The Minister should be ashamed of himself. If he thinks that it was correct to deport Viraj Mendis from Britain, perhaps he will have the courtesy to read the information that Viraj Mendis has provided of his experiences during that year in Sri Lanka.

9 pm

Mr. Bernie Grant: The Home Secretary has not answered the points that have been raised by Opposition Members. He stated that in any event three quarters of applications for asylum are from people who are already in Britain as either visitors or students. If that is the case, presumably their identities have been established because they are living in Britain and attending colleges and so on. They are here legally. I do not understand how the Home Secretary can give that reason to support his case.
If the Home Secretary now believes that photographic evidence is not enough to support a case, whether for asylum or anything else, is he saying that people who provide photographic evidence to entry clearance officers to enter Britain as visitors or to settle will be required to be fingerprinted? That is obviously the import of what he says. I wish that the Home Secretary would answer that point. If photographic or other evidence is not sufficient to support the case of an asylum seeker, why should it he sufficient to support a case for settlement or to visit Britain?

Mr. Clarke: Photographic evidence in itself is not always conclusive. I am not sure what photographic evidence we are talking about. Obviously, a photograph is one proof of identity, but if one has a database, it is extremely difficult to check every photograph to discover multiple applications. The entry clearance officers in Delhi whom I visited had turned up this chap's previous application. However, it is not always easy to do so. If one is lucky, sometimes it is possible to do so.
It is the intention that eventually all applicants for asylum will have given their fingerprints so that we have a quick and foolproof way of establishing their identity. Any future applications by that individual will be dealt with in the light of the previous application. I see nothing wrong with that. As we all know, fingerprints are a foolproof way of establishing identity. It merely means that every applicant will apply only once. Whatever name applicants choose to give, we shall have some previous record of the basis on which they applied before.
A tremendous amount of froth has been worked up about fingerprinting by Opposition Members, but they are silent about how we should protect against multiple applications, which plainly take place on quite a scale. In


the absence of any explanation of what the Opposition would do, I invite the House to reject their various proposals.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 1, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 22 and insert
an 'authorised person', that is to say, an immigration officer, constable, prison officer or officer of the Secretary of State authorised for the purposes of this section".

No. 30, in page 2, line 3, at end insert
but in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph (a) of that subsection, fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen except in the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person".

No. 31, in page 2, line 44, after 'section', insert `(a)'.

No. 32, in page 2, line 45, at end add 'and
(b) "dependant", in relation to the claimant, means a person—

(i) who is his spouse or a child of his under the age of eighteen; and
(ii) who has neither a right of abode in the United Kingdom nor indefinite leave under the 1971 Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 4

HOUSING OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 42, at end insert—
'(6) "Dependant" in this section or section 5 does not include a person who has leave to be in the United Kingdom other than as an asylum seeker or a person who has been granted political asylum, or who is a United Kingdom citizen.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. Gerrard: The amendment deals with the housing clauses and in particular the definition of who is a dependant of an asylum seeker. The housing clauses refer to not only asylum seekers but their dependants. I welcome the Government amendment which is similar to my amendment but I suggest that its scope is not as wide as that of my amendment. I shall return to that later.
It is important to clarify exactly who is to be treated as a dependant as such people will fall within the scope of the Bill. While it may be a minor point in terms of the scope of the Bill and it is certainly minor in terms of clauses 4 and 5, it is something that we need to clarify.
We still object in principle to clauses 4 and 5, which deal with housing and we believe that it is wrong to single out one group of people for inferior status and treatment when they apply for local authority housing. Harsher criteria will be applied to determining their applications. They will be eligible only for temporary housing and, once their asylum status is determined, they will have to reapply and be reassessed, which does not apply to other applicants. We argue that that is unnecessary and that it is based on, at best, a misunderstanding of the way in which the homelessness legislation works.
At the moment people have to overcome three hurdles and must prove: first that they are homeless; secondly that they are in priority need; and thirdly that they are not

intentionally homeless. The latter is particularly relevant to someone who comes to a local authority from another area.
As it stands, the legislation will deal with intentional homelessness. I believe, and I think that my hon. Friends would agree, that the housing provisions are based on the myth that homeless people, and asylum seekers and their dependants, are responsible for the present housing and homelessness crisis. However, that crisis is entirely due to lack of investment. Although resources may be short, at least local authorities are operating a system which does not discriminate against one type of applicant.
Local authorities should not have any part in asylum control and, inevitably, if they are drawn into it, people who apply as homeless at the housing department will be treated differently if their name is not English or if their face is black. Those people will be asked to produce passports and to prove that they are eligible for rehousing because they are homeless.
The removal of the reference to dependants will at least remove some people from the group that will receive inferior treatment. As the Bill is worded, it applies equally to asylum seekers or to anyone who is classed as a dependant of an asylum seeker. People who have permanent right of residence in this country may become dependants of asylum seekers. For example, it is conceivable that someone might marry an asylum seeker and thus become a dependant—they would certainly then be regarded as such by the Department of Social Security. The Government accept that asylum seekers may have been in this country legitimately for some years before applying for asylum and so it is feasible that that could happen. As the Bill is worded, anyone who becomes a dependant of an asylum seeker will lose his rights and we must safeguard against that.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the point of Government amendment No. 33 and the differences between it and amendment No. 7. The Government amendment applies only to people who have neither a right of abode nor indefinite leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom. As a result, someone who might well have been in the country for some years and have been given exceptional leave to remain by the Government—exceptional leave which could be renewed in due course and which would often become indefinite leave—will not be covered by the Bill.
They may still be treated as a dependant even though they have been in the country for a number of years and have leave to remain. Amendment No. 33 is narrower than amendment No. 7, which seeks to limit the effects of the clause to deal with asylum seekers only.
Ideally, we should like the clauses relating to housing removed altogether, but at the very least it is important that people who have rights of residence—people who have had rights to housing—should not lose them simply because they become the dependant of an asylum seeker.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I should like to deal first with amendment No. 33 because that is the one on which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) sought clarification. That amendment defines "dependant" of an asylum seeker for the purpose of the housing provisions of the Bill in the same way as amendment No. 32 defined "dependant" for the purposes of fingerprinting powers—


that is as a spouse or child under 18 who does not have the right of abode or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 7, which relates only to the housing provisions of the Bill, like amendment No. 33, would exclude from the definition of dependant anyone who had a limited leave, as well as those who have indefinite leave. In response to the question posed by the hon. Gentleman, the exclusion relating to those with limited leave would avoid the situation that could arise if, for example, a woman obtained leave to enter as a visitor and her husband then arrived to claim asylum. It is right that a person in that position should be treated as a dependant.
For those reasons I urge the House to support amendment No. 33 but to reject amendment No. 7.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 33, in clause 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
`() In relation to an asylum-seeker, "dependant" means a person—

(a) who is his spouse or a child of his under the age of eighteen; and
(b) who has neither a right of abode in the United Kingdom nor indefinite leave under the 1971 Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 6

CURTAILMENT OF LEAVE TO ENTER OR REMAIN

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'rejected' and insert
'given to the person notice in writing of his rejection of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 35, amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8, after 'person', insert
'at the same time as the notice of refusal'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 23, after 'order', insert
'only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not comply with restrictions placed on him to report to an immigration officer at an appointed time;'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 26, at end insert—
'(5) Any decision to detain and the grounds therefor must he given to the person detained, in writing in a language which he understands.'.

Mr. Wardle: The amendments require that if the power to curtail a leave under clause 6 is exercised, the notice of curtailment must be served at the same time as the notice refusing the asylum application. I am pleased to repeat the assurance that I gave to the Committee that curtailment of leave will not automatically follow refusal of an asylum claim. Each case will be considered on its merits.
The key question will be whether the asylum application has raised doubts about the continuing entitlement of the person to stay in this country under the immigration rules. When it is decided at the time the asylum claim is determined that a person no longer qualifies to remain here the intention has always been that the notices should be served simultaneously: the person would be notified of the refusal of his claim, the curtailment of his leave, and the decision to make a deportation order against him. He would then be entitled to appeal to a special adjudicator against the deportation decision. Where the decision is not taken at the time the asylum application is refused, we accept that it would be wrong to leave the person uncertain as to his status in this

country: for example, it would be unfair to leave a student pursuing long-term studies in suspense as to whether his leave was to be curtailed at some later date. Clarification was sought in Committee about that and I am happy to give it. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 therefore make clear the way in which the powers should be operated and I commend them to the House.
Amendment No. 9 would provide that a person could be detained only if there were reasonable grounds for assuming he would not comply with other restrictions requiring him to report to an immigration officer. This is already our practice when considering detention in immigration cases generally. It will continue to be so under the specific power in clause 6. We will exercise the power to detain only if we do not think that the person would keep in touch; and that a failure to detain would frustrate our intention to enforce departure.
Detention is not undertaken lightly. As well as having an obvious impact on the individual concerned, it is also costly and it is generally undesirable for the Department to tie up limited detention accommodation unnecessarily. However, it must remain an option for those relatively few—cases where we have reason to believe that an applicant will not co-operate or comply with other restrictions that might be placed on him.
9.15 pm
Amendment No. 10 provides that a person who is to be detained should be supplied with the reasons in writing and in a language that he understands. Few would disagree with the view that applicants should be informed about the processes affecting them, particularly where a matter as serious as detention is concerned. However, I am not convinced that such a requirement needs to be placed on the face of the Bill.
Applicants who are to be detained will be notified in person by the detaining immigration officer in a language that they can understand and via an interpreter if necessary. We are considering what written information should be given to detainees to reflect the procedures that will affect them.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister amplify the question of the translation of information to be given to people being interviewed? The trained officers often have no access to a sufficient number of interpreters who can translate into the appropriate languages. When one asks for more unusual dialects or languages, the Home Office is unable to assist. What progress has been made in that matter? During the last round of Home Office questions, the Minister promised progress.

Mr. Wardle: That point will arise under a later set of amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now discussing information on the intention to detain. That will be available in a limited number of languages. It is impracticable to expect notices to be available in every conceivable language, but every attempt will be made to explain what is happening to individuals concerned in those relatively few cases. When we discuss amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 27, I shall be pleased to comment a little further on the question of interpreters if the hon. Gentleman presses me.
I think that further written information is available in about 10 languages in the immigration detention accommodation and staff are available to deal with detainees' inquiries.
For those reasons, I urge the House to support amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and to reject the other amendments grouped with them.

Mr. Fraser: The Government amendments have met the point that I raised in amendment No. 8. Although they have not amended the Bill, the Minister has given assurances, so we shall not take the matter further. As we cannot vote against the clause, may I say that we are deeply concerned about the principle of curtailment of leave because it can discourage an application for political asylum. It is particularly severe when a student who may be doing a three-year degree course is considering whether to make an application, because the effect of applying for asylum if conditions change in the student's home country may lead not only to a refusal but to the student being returned to the country from which he appealed for safety. However, I made that point in Committee and we do not wish to divide on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 5, line 8, after 'person', insert
'concurrently with the notice under paragraph (b) above'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 7

APPEALS TO SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'in consequence of the refusal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
'() Nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall be taken to prevent a person appealing against a refusal to revoke a deportation order under the preceding subsection where that person remains in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Fraser: The amendment may seem to make a trivial point, but we propose to leave out the words
in consequence of the refusal
because the appeal should be based on whatever grounds are available rather than simply on the consequence of the approval. I cannot understand why it is necessary for those words to appear in the Bill as they seem to restrict the right to appeal. The Minister may have an explanation. If he assures us that they do not inhibit the appeal, then so be it.
Amendment No. 12 was raised in Committee. As the Minister knows, section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971 prevents an appeal against a revocation of a deportation order while the appellant is in the United Kingdom. The Minister promised to ensure that the law was amended so that, if the application for revocation of the deportation order could be made to raise a political asylum matter under the convention, section 15 of the 1971 Act would not prevent that application from being made. Unless it was intended for the issue to be covered by Government new clause 6, it is still not clear to us how an application for revocation can be made while a person remains in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Amendment No. 11 is unnecessary since removal is only at issue following a refusal. The

wording of the current draft thus accurately and clearly reflects the appeal rights of a person who has been refused leave to enter.
Amendment No. 12 appears to reflect misunderstanding about the way in which the new rights of appeal against a deportation decision for asylum seekers will work. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
Clause 7(3) confers a right of appeal against a decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5) of the 1971 Act. It also confers a right of appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order which has already been made, either under section 3(5) or, on the recommendation of a court, under section 3(6). Unlike the equivalent provision in the 1971 Act, there is no requirement in the Bill that an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order should be made from abroad. The only restriction is that a person may not bring an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order if he has already appealed under clause 7 against the decision to make the order.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall prevent an appeal under clause 7 against a refusal to revoke a deportation order being made while the person is still in this country. But the key words of section 15(5) are:
A person shall not be entitled to appeal under this section against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so long as he is in the United Kingdom".
The restriction clearly applies only to appeals under section 15 of the 1971 Act, not to appeals under clause 7 of the Bill.
Therefore, I trust that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Norwood will accept that both amendments are unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

APPEALS FROM IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 6, line 22, after 'law' insert 'or fact'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 6, leave out lines 23 to 25.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am sorry for my delay, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hours have been dragging on and I get the strong impression from the helpful hint of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that I may deal with the amendments fairly swiftly.
Both amendments seek to widen the scope of clause 8. In respect of amendment No. 13, the final tier of appeal in immigration and asylum matters from the immigration appeal tribunal to the Court of Appeal is intended only for the resolution of questions of law. Questions of fact should already have been resolved by the appeal structure leading up to this tribunal. Asylum claims are initially decided on behalf of the Secretary of State by officers of the asylum division. Appeals against the initial decisions can be made on questions of either fact or law to a special adjudicator. Provision is made for appeals, with leave, from the special adjudicator's determination to the tribunal on questions of either fact or law. As a matter of general practice, the Court of Appeal does not usually interfere with a


tribunal's findings of fact, particularly where such findings turn on which witnesses are to be believed or the weight to be attached to particular evidence. I can see no reason to make an exception to this practice in the situation covered by clause 8.
With regard to amendment No. 14, a leave requirement is routinely provided for in the case of appeals to the Court of Appeal from courts, such as the county courts, and tribunals, such as the employment appeal tribunal. I can see no reason why a special exception should be made in the present case. In addition, the absence of a leave requirement would be likely to result in an unacceptably large number of unmeritorious appeals having to be heard by the Court of Appeal, thereby causing significant delays in those courts and consequent hardship for litigants.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

VISITORS, SHORT-TERM AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND THEM DEPENDANTS

Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 36, leave out from line 36 to line 5 on page 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 6 to 33, and Government amendments Nos. 36 to 39.

Mr. Allen: It is hard to choose the most obnoxious clause in this Bill, but I suppose that this one would get my vote. In its previous incarnation this Bill was known as the Asylum Bill; it has now turned into the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Why "Immigration"? My colleagues and I do not believe that immigration matters have any place in an asylum Bill. If the Government were serious about helping people whose desperate plight we outlined so vividly in Committee, they would have introduced measures that related only to political asylum. The Government threw in immigration only in order to make what they see as political capital out of the Bill. This looks more like a ploy to assist the Secretary of State's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party than a conscious effort to help people seeking political asylum or wanting to visit relatives and friends in this country.
This deliberate confusion is a smokescreen to sell the idea which the Secretary of State tried to sell in his wild contribution on fingerprinting that asylum seeking is somehow linked to the mass immigration policies pursued 30 years ago. He tried to raise the spectre of mass immigration. That pre-election scare is also part of the new ideology which the Secretary of State is using to improve his image with the right wing of the Conservative party.
What worries me most about the Secretary of State's cavalier attitude to civil liberties, in fingerprinting and other matters, is that certain fundamental principles which have long been part of British law are being undermined because there is seen to be political advantage in that. I am thinking particularly of the principle of natural justice. In almost every other walk of life there is a right of appeal. Even a convicted murderer has a right of appeal. A social security claimant who believes that his claim has been wrongly assessed has such a right. For all systems of administration this right offers the possibility of redress

when a decision has been wrongly taken. This basic tenet of natural justice has survived intact for several hundred years—until the advent of this Government.
It is a dangerous step to throw away such a principle of natural justice. Today, the right of appeal for people refused applications for visitors visas is being dispensed with. What group will be the next to lose their right of appeal? Let us not forget that this is not a little-used appeal system. Only last year, 1,700 successful appeals were heard from the Indian sub-continent. If a similar number are unjustly refused next year, however, they will not have the chance to put the matter right by appeal because their right to do so will have been abolished. It is argued that many more might have lodged successful appeals had they wished to pursue them.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, in his usual callous manner, at the press conference that launched this Bill, there is no point in giving these people the right of appeal as many of them have now lost their reason for coming to this country because of delays. He took an almost perverse pride in the fact that the weddings, funerals, christenings or religious ceremonies which had provided the original reasons for coming had now taken place—so why give these people the right of appeal? That was the Minister's attitude when he should have been admitting that officers in his charge continually make wrong judgments that require to be put right on appeal. He almost took pride in saying that there was no need for appeals.
9.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the European dimension. In the harmonisation process, Britain seeks to become the lowest common denominator in the Community. Britain still retains a right of appeal which does not exist in many other countries. In seeking the abolition of the right to have a visitor's visa refusal heard again the Secretary of State is lowering to European level one of the few areas of immigration law in which Britain can take some pride.
Thousands of unjustified refusals are being brought to light and corrected by the appeals system and only Conservatives would think that the answer is to abolish the appeals system rather than to find out why so many appeals go wrong and why so many unjust decisions are taken in the first place. There is a 20 per cent. failure rate by the civil servants. What an outcry there would be if one in five income tax assessments and one in five social security applications were wrong. The right of appeal has brought the problem to light, and rather than abolishing appeals the Secretary of State should find out why the system allows so many wrong decisions to be made in the first place.
We shall later discuss the better training and supervision that is required for officials who take the decisions. Once again it is a question of openness versus secrecy and the way that the Government have pushed the Bill through Committee. When the Trevi group was meeting in the Queen Elizabeth conference centre the Committee was in session. The Committee was not informed about what was going on until we demanded papers from the Trevi meeting. It was almost as if the Trevi group had a life of its own and did not need to worry about what Parliament was deciding.
An example of that is the way in which immigration officers are virtually immune from having their responsibilities scrutinised in this place. Despite my best efforts and those of my hon. Friends, the immigration officers' training manual is not open to public view. On the day that we were debating that and the Trevi group were meeting we were told that there would be a European manual on immigration officers' practice and that it would be publicly available. However, the British manual is not to be seen.
There is no rational justification for removal of the right of appeal against an administrative decision. It will give unfettered powers to civil servants and immigration officials and can only lead to worse decisions since they will not be subject to review by an independent authority. That is exemplified by experience. When the courts decided in 1976 that there was no right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave if the application was made late, more late applications were refused. When the Immigration Act 1988 removed the right of appeal on the merits of people threatened with deportation who had been in the United Kingdom for less than seven years, the number of deportation decisions shot up from 863 in 1987 to 3,440 in 1991. The removal of the right of appeal can therefore be expected to lead to a rise in the number of refusals.
Many refused visitors do not appeal and, of those who do, many more do not pursue their case after the initial anger and humiliation and the need to understand have faded. That makes it clear that the number of people who win such appeals is only a small percentage of those refused wrongly and unjustly. Many more would have been successful had they pursued their case or kept in touch with their representatives and provided documents and information as necessary. There is room for reform of the immigration appeals system to ensure that all cases are heard and decisions are reached more speedily, but this should not be at the expense of justice.
The Home Office reacted to the widespread criticism of this part of the Bill—in Committee and elsewhere—by issuing a press release on 8 December 1992 when the Minister made his response to the Committee. I will not delay the House by describing the pantomime in Committee, when the Minister as the dame was dragged, feigning reluctance, to announce one or two supposed concessions. As I hope to demonstrate, the concessions amounted to nothing.
The Government's response does not meet the main concerns about the loss of the right of appeal. The main proposal is that refused visitors should receive a far more detailed refusal notice, setting out the reasons why a visa had been refused. This might help to explain the thought processes of the entry clearance officer dealing with the case, but may also be intended to pre-empt any application for judicial review of decisions—the only method of challenge remaining open. It was interesting to hear Lord Justice Taylor's remark, in the Dimbleby lecture, that if the due process is not gone through one will necessarily end up with more and more judicial reviews. If the intention is to speed up the process, the exact opposite may occur.
The press release also stated that a previous refusal would not prejudice any subsequent applications. This should be a matter of course. Every application should be considered on its own merits, but it is known that this is not the case. The standard entry application form asks, in question 19:

Have you ever been refused a visa or entry clearance at a UK diplomatic mission or Post?
It then asks people to complete an additional form if they have been refused. It is clear that the purpose of the question is to enable the entry clearance officer to find any previous papers about the earlier application and to compare them with the present one. It is not unknown for people to be asked whether anything has changed since the previous application and, if they say that it has not, for the application to be refused.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called concession that the Under-Secretary announced in Committee, and to which my hon. Friend referred, is only what is happening at the moment? Any constituent can go to his Member of Parliament, who writes to the Foreign Office and gets a detailed response. There is nothing new here.

Mr. Allen: A number of practices set out by the Minister in his press release are already standard. Equally, one does not need an asylum Bill to make the amendments that the Minister announced in Committee. If he wishes to make those amendments, they can be done easily, and with the agreement of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, provided that they are not a substitute for the right of appeal, which is the backdrop for all these matters.
The press release issued by the Minister also sets out the other courses of action that are open to would-be visitors, and my hon. Friends have referred to them. The Home Office also states that the Foreign Office will revise its information leaflets for visitors and will consider a leaflet for sponsors. At present the leaflets are produced only in English and do not explain the pitfalls of immigration rules. It is our view that any leaflet produced should be translated into appropriate languages and should be accessible. They should be widely available, and not only on request, at British posts.
Most seriously, the Home Office press release is exclusively about visitors and visas. It does not mention the other forms of entry clearance, entry certificates, letters of consent, refusals at ports of entry of people who do not require visas or students or prospective students.
The Minister said in Committee that he meant to include all forms of entry clearance, but he said nothing about people who do not require prior entry clearance who are refused at a British port or airport. If the statements in the leaflets do not apply to port refusals, they amount to a further attempt to introduce a universal visa requirement through the back door. If they do not apply to students, there is no justification for this further discrimination against them. It is important that the Home Office provides further clarification.
The clause will hit hard British families—black British families, Asian British families and other British families whose only crime will be the wish to see relatives—parents and grandparents, for example—on occasions such as holidays, religious ceremonies, marriages, christenings and funerals. It is one of the worst parts of an extremely poor Bill and the Opposition will divide the House when the Question is put on the amendment to ensure that the clause is thrown out of the Bill. If that is not done in this place, we hope that the clause will be seriously revised, if not thrown out completely, in the other place.

Mr. Peter Shore: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have a


substantial Asian or Commonwealth community residing in their constituencies. Much resentment has been expressed to me—I am sure that this has been the experience of many other Members with such a community—about the clause. It is difficult to understand why it is in the Bill. Such a clause was not in the 1991 Bill. Goodness knows what considerations led the Minister to decide to include it in this measure.
The Minister has not taken aboard sufficiently the fact that settled in our country are hundreds of thousands of people from new Commonwealth countries who are here legitimately. Visitors from those countries have to obtain a visa to come here, and that puts them apart—in a sense it discriminates against them—from others who come to the United Kingdom who are not required to surmount the same hurdles. I talk, of course, of visitors from visa countries and their families who are in this country.
Taking account of that, is it not extraordinary that given the number of appeals—it is not huge in relation to the number of appeals generally that remain outstanding within the system the Minister should ask the House to remove entirely the right of appeal for visitors who have been refused a visa and entry to the United Kingdom?
I take the view that officials are nothing other than people who are trying to do their best in administering our laws. I am not mounting an attack on entry certificate officers, but obviously they are not infallible. Mistakes are made occasionally, and they are duly recorded, as is the number of successful appeals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said when addressing the House from the Opposition Front Bench, about 1,500 successful appeals were made last year. I think that that is the Minister's own figure. Are we saying that we are not interested in 1,500 examples of injustice that would otherwise be allowed to stand?
Is it not the fact that the availability of appeal is an important element in the decision making of entry certificate officers generally? It is only a back-up power, as it were, but to some extent it enables there to be surveillance of their decision making. It is an important factor in the decisions that they make.
9.45 pm
The Government have made a grave error and I shall explain why. First, I want to emphasise the number of people from visa countries who want to come here simply as visitors for family reasons. Surely families, especially grandparents, have the right to see their children and their children's children. Unlike those of us who have our families of all generations with us in Britain, those families are separated not by 50, 100 or even 300 miles, but by thousands of miles. It requires great effort simply to get to this country. The Minister knows the considerable cost of air fares. For the most part they are poor families—and, quite frankly, their families in this country are often among the lowest paid workers. Those families already have to overcome many obstacles.
There is another point of which I do not think the Minister has taken any account. However, I assure him that it is well understood and resented in our settled immigrant communities. I am referring to the fact that the Minister is actually imposing a double discrimination system—the visa system and the abolition of the right of appeal—at the very moment when the Single European Act has come into force and 300 million Europeans can come to this country at will. They are not required to prove

that they will not be a burden on public funds or that there is adequate housing and accommodation for them. They do not have to show that they will stay here for only six months—they can stay here for six years. That is what the Government have granted to 300 million Europeans, very few of whom have the human and family contacts with people in this country that is enjoyed by many of our constituents whose parents and grandparents come from the Indian sub-continent and some of the African Commonwealth nations.
That policy is discrimination. It is granting truly extraordinary rights to millions of Europeans who do not have close family connections with this country, while erecting a new barrier, by abolishing the right of appeal, against the millions of people who have family connections with people who are settled here. The Minister has made an appalling error and I ask him to think carefully about what has been said. The matter was thoroughly turned over in Committee, when the arguments were put very powerfully. I ask him to think about the effect of such a double discrimination on the sentiments and thinking of hundreds and thousands of people in this country who believe—or at least hope—that all political parties are determined to rule and administer our laws in a way that is equitable to all.

Mr. Madden: There is a common view that the clause represents a new and sinister dimension to the Bill that goes well beyond the provisions of the previous Bill. When news of the clause swept through our black and Asian communities there was panic among the Conservative Members who represent some of them. Soon after the Bill had been published and been given its Second Reading, there were newspaper reports that Conservative Members were concerned about the abolition of the right of appeal for those refused a visitor's visa. The reports suggested that those Conservative Members had warned the Government that they could not be certain of their support in the Lobby tonight during Report stage and Third Reading.
We were told that Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—I am pleased to see him in his place—the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and eight other Conservative Members were so concerned about the matter that they would not automatically support the Bill.
In Committee, the wriggling and squirming of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) was a spectacle to behold on almost every occasion that the Committee sat. There were all sorts of gossiping and chats about how the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth and other Conservative Members could be got off the hook on which the Minister and the Home Secretary had put them. There were meetings at the Home Office between those worried Conservative Members and the Minister.
Lo and behold, the day came—and on 8 December, in Committee, the Minister was able to read from a prepared press release that a number of concessions were to be made, which would meet the concerns and worries of the Conservative Members in question—it would be all right, lads and lasses, because they could all vote for clause 9 tonight with a clear conscience.
As you have already heard, Madam Speaker, those concessions do not amount to a row of beans. In reality, if clause 9 becomes law, large numbers of people refused a visit visa will have no remedy. They will be able to write to,


or otherwise contact through their sponsors, Members of Parliament—including those worried Conservative Members who had doubts about clause 9 in the first place. We will then be able to write to a Foreign Office Minister responsible for visit visa administration, urging that a person refused permission to visit relatives, to attend a family wedding or funeral, or to visit for some other legitimate purpose should be allowed to do so. No doubt we will receive the same kind of letter that we already receive, expressing regret but saying that there is nothing that the Minister can do and that the applicant will just have to lump it.
At present, such people have a right of appeal—and we heard that a large proportion of those who appeal are successful. That right is of central importance, and it is extremely worrying that the Government are proposing to abolish it—which is triggering in the minds of many black or Asian people in particular concern over further action and whether other rights of appeal might be abolished.
I wonder how many other hon. and right hon. Members shared my concern when I saw tonight the gleam in the eye of the Home Secretary when he was saying how unsatisfactory are photographs as a means of identification. How much longer before a fiance applying to enter this country to be married, or a spouse seeking to join his or her partner in this country, will have to be fingerprinted before applying? How much longer will it be before settlement refusals will no longer be capable of being appealed against?
In Committee, the Minister failed miserably to justify clause 9. He said:
With a backlog of 23,000 appeals awaiting hearings by adjudicators, it must be recognised that the system is not delivering a fair, effective and timely remedy either to would-be visitors or to those seeking to settle here. It is necessary to concentrate resources on those cases which vitally affect a person's future. We do not undervalue the importance to many people born or settled here of visits by relatives. We recognise that what we need is to develop measures to ensure that the small proportion of would-be visitors who at present succeed in their appeals are not disadvantaged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1991; c. 649.]
What disingenuous gobbledegook is that?
The Minister was arguing that the inefficiencies of the appellate system, which have created a backlog of 23,000 cases, is the justification for abolishing a longstanding right of appeal.

Mr. Bernie Grant: My hon. Friend speaks of justification. Is he aware that the right of appeal for visitors came about as a result of an initiative by the Wilson Government, and that a commission was set up specifically to examine the way in which new Commonwealth citizens were being treated at our ports of entry? Is it not strange that it takes a commission to establish a right of appeal, and that this Government can destroy that right of appeal at a stroke without even having the courtesy to justify their wish to get rid of it?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No doubt that is why the director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, writing to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 5 January, said:
We must convey the now widespread belief that there can be no rational justification for this proposal"—
that is, clause 9.

Removal of a right of appeal against an administrative decision, thus giving unfettered power to a civil servant or immigration official, can only lead to more careless decision-making since the officials know that their decisions will not be reviewed by any independent authority.
Mr. Moraes continued:
You will already know from the statistics that this removal of an appeal right will disproportionately affect black British people and those settled here, as people from black and third world countries have a much higher chance of refusal.
In the new spirit espoused by the Minister in Committee in November, I deliberately delayed writing to him until 17 December about a constituent of mine whose 63–year-old mother wished to come here for medical treatment that she had been advised urgently to undertake when she last visited the country in 1990. She wished to come accompanied by her daughter. Her son, who has lived here for five years, had arranged for private medical treatment to be provided in Bradford; he was already prepared to pay the £2,500 that was required. As a home owner in full-time employment, he was perfectly willing to accommodate his mother and sister during their stay.
I was surprised to receive, on 31 December, a reply from a Foreign Office Minister, who informed me that he, rather than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department, was responsible for such matters. An official in the migration and visa correspondence unit told me:
Because of the break in diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq and the closure of the Embassy in Baghdad, Mrs. A and Miss A have no alternative but to apply for entry clearance at one of our visa-issuing posts outside Iraq. I enclose a list of our visa-issuing posts in Europe which have a waiting time of two weeks or less for non-resident applicants, which I hope your constituent will find helpful. I suggest that Mrs. A and her daughter first telephone or write to the post they choose in order to answer any preliminary enquiries and to book an appointment for a personal interview, which is an essential part of the entry clearance procedure. This will save time and avoid the risk of a wasted journey.
That came as very bad news to my constituent, who told me this weekend that there was no European country to which an Iraqi national could obtain a visa within Iraq, and that the nearest place where his mother and sister could obtain a visa was in Jordan. That would involve a 16–hour bus ride, and the lady concerned is now so badly disabled that she is wheelchair bound.
That case clearly illustrates the difficulties that will confront the Minister, and many other Members of Parliament, in the coming months and years if this wretched clause becomes law. My constituent is right to argue that if the Government hold a compassionate view and want to help those who wish to visit this country for medical and other reasons, the information that I have received from the Foreign Office does not reinforce or strengthen any conviction that the public might have about the true intentions of this Government.
Clause 9 is an integral part of this wretched, racist Bill. I hope that Conservative Members who, when it was first announced, were extremely worried about its consequences—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Madden: Once again I urge those Conservative Members who initially had reservations about the clause to have the courage of their true convictions and to vote against clause 9. We understand that they cannot bring themselves to vote against this wretched Bill, but I urge them to pluck up the courage to vote against the clause. To do so would reinforce whatever reputation they may have for their belief in principles, the right to natural justice and the right of appeal against judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. It would be appreciated by their constituents who, if the clause becomes law, will lose the right to have their relatives and friends visit them in this country, a right that many of them, as British citizens, hold very dear. I hope that the clause will be defeated, that this important right of appeal will be retained and that we shall be able to say to the British people, whatever their race, colour or religion, that we believe that they, as British citizens, are all equal before the law and have the right to appeal against administrative decisions.

Mr. Maclennan: This is undoubtedly one of the most important amendments before the House and it should enjoy the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Certainly it should enjoy the support of those who earlier expressed their anxiety about the importation into a Bill, purportedly dealing with asylum matters, of a further measure to clamp down on visitors to this country who are not seeking asylum.
It might tolerably be argued that a Bill to curb asylum seekers will not cause deep public concern. It may be thought that, after the passage of a modest amount of time, anxieties about fingerprinting and people coming from Angola and other countries who have no relatives in this country to welcome and support them when they arrive here will be blocked out and that no problems will arise from the asylum aspects of the Bill. The Government can have no such hope, however, regarding clause 9. It will directly affect the lives of many citizens in this country for many years to come. It will stimulate deep hostility among those who feel themselves to be discriminated against, when members of their families are denied the right to visit them here. Such people cannot experience the support and joy of temporary visits because the Government of the day believe that it is administratively inconvenient properly to scrutinise their applications. That must be bad for race relations in the United Kingdom.
It may be that Governments of different political complexions have felt it necessary to have a firm immigration policy for the benefit of race relations in the United Kingdom. However, that firm policy must be seen to be fair if it is not to exacerbate the ill feeling among minority communities that those who are in the majority are abusing their power to their family disadvantage.
I hope that the Minister will not seek to justify the inclusion of something in this Bill which even the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—stimulated as he was by a desire to split the House on the issue of race before an election—did not think it appropriate to include in his Bill. This nasty inclusion is the creation of someone who postured in the past as a liberal in matters of race. The Home Secretary appeared to relish that reputation. and I will not speculate on why he now chooses to cast off that mantle.
If the House fails tonight to extrude the obnoxious clause from the Bill, I hope that those in another place will examine with particular attention the possibility of restoring what successive Governments accepted as necessary to ensure that applications for visits to the United Kingdom were fairly perused and open to appeal. The obnoxious clause was not included by the Government on a whim in response to pressures from a particular group in society; it was introduced as a result of careful deliberation. It is true that the right of appeal was introduced by a Labour Government, but it was endorsed by Conservative Governments. No political parties were divided on the matter until this Government introduced the amendment.
The Government's method and approach to immigration and race relations are obnoxious because they cause a split in the United Kingdom on not only the grounds of colour but the grounds of party. The Minister must remove the clause and accept the amendment. If he does, he will receive the thanks and appreciation of all hon. Members for having allowed sense to prevail over the corruption of administrative power that has been too long enjoyed.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for listening to the concerns which some of my hon. Friends and I have expressed about clause 9. My hon. Friend listened most courteously. He went away and thought about the issues which we had raised and proposed some changes. I am not critical of the changes. Indeed, I believe that they will help the way in which administrative decisions are made in the future. But they will remain essentially administrative decisions.
I share the anxieties that have already been expressed tonight that there will be no possibility of appeal against administrative decisions which may be wrong because human decisions so often are fallible. One must bear in mind that those decisions are of great significance to many people. It is often difficult for people who have settled in Britain to travel to visit their relatives in their country of origin. People who have settled in Britain often have jobs from which it is difficult for them to spend much time away. Therefore, if a family is to be brought together from time to time, there is no alternative to a journey to Britain by a relative.
Entry clearance officers certainly have difficult decisions to make. The information that they have is often limited. That is why adjudicators are often better placed. They will see the sponsor and perhaps others. As constituency Members we know that, while ultimately it is the intentions of the visitor which are important, the evidence given by sponsors can be absolutely vital. In the communities in Britain, a sponsor would be unlikely to co-operate in a decision to ignore immigration rules because that would do great damage in a close-knit community.
When one reads the adjudicator's decision in the determination of many cases, one appreciates that where successful appeals are made there is often no credible reason for rejecting an application. As we have heard, every year there are 1,500 or so successful appeals. I am not satisfied that, because an applicant will have another opportunity to apply and the evidence will be heard by different entry clearance officers wherever possible, the decision will necessarily be right.
At present, we have a helpful safeguard and I regret that it will be lost in the future. I have had few representations against clause 9. It is not because of the number of representations that I have received that I intend to vote against the Government on amendment No. 15. I intend to vote against the amendment because of my knowledge of such cases as someone who has represented constituents and dealt with such cases for many years.
If the amendment would make it essentially easier for people to overstay illegally or evade the immigration rules, one would have to think carefully about it. However, in my experience the people who appeal do not intend to overstay or evade the immigration rules. They are often people with a good case. It is because those good cases will not have an opportunity to be heard and because administrative decisions will not be overturned where they are weak that I am afraid that I shall have to go into the Opposition Lobby this evening.

Mr. Corbyn: I compliment the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on what he said and his decision about how to vote this evening. That is a sign that at least some Conservative Members are not prepared to accept what the Government gave as a great retreat as anything more than a figleaf to cover them during the Committee proceedings. The removal of appeal rights for visitors is a disgraceful removal of the right of ordinary people to a proper hearing. It is also the removal of any accountability for public officials who grant or refuse the right of entry clearance or a visitor's visa.
Earlier today, almost 1,000 people almost all of them black—were brought to the House of Commons by the National Black Caucus to lobby against this clause. I pay tribute to the National Black Caucus for doing so, for the spirit and intelligence of its lobby and for everything that it said, because it came directly from the heart.
All hon. Members who represent constituencies that contain many people with families living in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the far east and many other parts of the world, are aware of the consequences of the system. To put it in context, last year there were 10,000 appeals against refusals of visits to this country. Those appeals were made by people who arrived in this country, sought entry, were refused and were sent back to the country that they had come from, where they went through the appeals system and 17 per cent. of those appeals were granted. Under the Government's cock-eyed system and by their own admission, 1,700 people were wrongly denied entry to this country.
10.15 pm
The existing appeals system is seriously flawed because the appeal must take place in the country of application. If someone who has saved up a great deal of money to come to this country from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India or the Caribbean is refused admission on arrival and has to return home, although he might win an appeal it is useless if he has spent the best part of a year's wages on the air fare to come here in the first place.
I do not know whether the Minister understands the heartache and misery caused to families who prepare years in advance for a wedding or some other great family occasion, only to find that the grandparents, distant uncles or cousins whom they so desperately wanted to attend are

suddenly not allowed to come. Does he understand the humiliation of it? Families preparing for a great family occasion on a Saturday or Sunday often get an anguished call on Wednesday or Thursday the week before from relatives who cannot get permission to come into the country or who have arrived and been sent back. Hon. Members who represent inner-city constituencies regularly experience the hassle of trying to persuade immigration officers that there is some new evidence, or some merit in contacting the Minister's private office and all the rest of it.
The way in which the system operates is wrong and the Minister should not be introducing clause 9 but should accept its removal and should introduce a new clause to allow an in-country right of appeal so that people would not have to suffer the nonsense of being removed from this country and told that they can appeal in the country that they have come from.
Another side to the question is the way in which entry clearance officers at particular British missions abroad will be making the decisions. I have attended interviews for entry clearance for permanent residency and I am sorry to have to say that entry clearance officers indulge in a large degree of subjective decision-making, based on a person's wealth and on what they choose to call the immigration history of the family concerned. Basically, that subjective decision-making means that if one is poor, black and comes from Africa, the Caribbean or south Asia there is a high chance that one will be refused admission to this country for a visit, but if one is white and comes from the United States, South Africa or Australia one is unlikely to be refused admission to this country.
If the present rather inadequate right of appeal is removed, immigration officials will have totally untrammelled power over the lives of many families and the happiness of many people. There will be no accountability. The system is racist because of whom it is directed at and it is flawed in its approach.
I hope that the Minister will understand that the anger outside the House and throughout ethnic communities in this country will not go away, whatever the decision this evening. There will be challenges and I hope that successful amendments will be made to the Bill in the House of Lords and that the decision will be challenged legally by a judicial review. The Minister has not heard the end of it yet.
I also remind the Minister that, although many people are badly treated when they apply to visit this country, British tourists who seek to visit India, Bangladesh or any other country are treated decently by their high commissions and embassies here. The Minister should think about the small rate of refusal for visitors' visas for British tourists who seek to visit those countries. I can imagine the screaming headlines in the Daily Mail if many British people seeking to visit India as tourists were denied entry. I can just imagine the way in which that newspaper would present such stories. Why cannot such papers turn their undoubted propaganda skills round to attack the Government for removing a basic right of appeal against an unjust decision by an unaccountable official?
I ask the Minister to recognise the strength and justice of our case for the removal of clauses 9 and 10 from what is a wholly inadequate Bill in any case.

Mr. Winnick: I wish more Conservative Members other than the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) had spoken against the clause. He rightly said why its inclusion


could not be supported and said that he would vote against it. I welcome that decision, but it will be rather unfortunate if he is the only hon. Member on the Conservative Benches so to vote because many people are deeply concerned about the clause. They rightly understand that it represents a form of discrimination against a section of people who will be discriminated basically because they intend to invite here relatives or friends from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.
I regret that the Government have decided to include this clause in the Bill. We were not told that that was their intention when the Bill was submitted to the House prior to the general election. I am particularly worried because if the Bill as it now stands is passed, how long will it be, as my hon. Friends have already asked, before other rights of appeal are taken away? Does it mark the beginning of the end of the appeal system?
The appeal system came into existence 22 years last July. I speak with some experience of it, because in the past I represented people, almost on a continuing basis, who appeared before adjudicators. As the Minister knows, one must prove before the adjudicator the relevance of circumstances at the time that the decision was made by an entry clearance officer. It is no use someone coming before an adjudicator and saying that the situation has improved because the appellant has more money than he did when he originally applied to visit this country. The adjudicator must simply decide whether the decision taken by the entry clearance officer at the time was right in law.
One must argue the case on behalf of the appellant to show that the circumstances at the time of the original decision were such that that decision should have been different. The fact is that in nearly 20 per cent. of visitor cases appeals the adjudicators or the immigration appeals tribunal have found that the original decision by the entry clearance officer was wrong. Surely that is a matter of some concern.

Mrs. Roche: Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason for having the appellate system is that it provides a check on the way in which entry clearance officers and immigration officers carry out their functions? That check is important even if those functions are not subject to an appeal. Recently an immigration officer at a port of entry changed his mind on a decision because, as he said frankly to me, he knew that he could not argue his decision on appeal. The mere existence of the appellate system changed his mind. That is why it is so important to keep it.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a decision is appealed against, the entry clearance officer must write what is known as an explanatory statement, which can run to eight or 12 pages, and in which he or she must give, at length, the reasons it was decided to refuse the application.
If there is no appeal system for visitors, entry clearance officers know that, however much they believe that they have done their job well, it will not be subject to appeal. At most what will happen is that the Member of Parliament representing the sponsor will write to the Minister. In reply the Minister will probably say—

Mr. Madden: Sod off.

Mr. Winnick: Well, he may not say that as such; he will put it in more dignified terms. He will say that the entry

clearance officer considered all the facts and circumstances, came to his or her decision and that he, the Minister, can see no reason for overruling it. The entry clearance officer will know that there will be no adjudicator, no immigration appeals tribunal, no judicial review in certain circumstances, and no High Court case. He will therefore have total power to decide whether a person can come to this country on a short visit. I believe that that is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) referred to the Wilson committee. That committee recommended an appeals system because it believed that if the United Kingdom were to have tight immigration controls, which most of us believe are necessary, there must also be elementary justice and that people who are denied the right to come here should have the right to appeal. That system has operated for some 22 years and if we are to take away certain people's right to appeal, how soon will it be before other rights are also taken away?
Some people may say that few people are involved in sponsoring visitors. That is neither here nor there. Many people invite relatives to this country for perfectly genuine reasons. They want to see their parents or adult children and are willing to make sacrifices so that that close relative can come to the United Kingdom. When the relative from the Indian sub-continent or the West Indies is refused, they believe—rightly or wrongly—that it is because he or she has a black or Asian skin and that, had the person concerned been white, there would have been no trouble. Great harm may come to race relations in this country if people who are settled here, with every right to be here, find that their closest relatives cannot visit them. We are discussing not people coming here to live—that is not the issue—but people who wish to visit. Once they are here as visitors, they have no right to stay. The Minister is not arguing that the appeals system must go because people overstay their visit and go underground. He is nodding in agreement at that.
A fundamental right is being taken away. We shall no doubt lose the vote tonight, especially if only one Conservative Member intends to vote with us. However, the principle is important and I hope that the other place will not reach the same decision as I fear this House will reach tonight. I hope that the other place will recognise that what the Labour party has been saying, supported by the Liberal party and the one Conservative Member, is extremely important and that it will successfully challenge the Government. We shall be unable to do so tonight because, although Conservative Members understand the issue, they fear opposing the Government. They do not have the courage to do so and they are abdicating their responsibility as Members of Parliament.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I could not let the clause pass without making a few remarks because the Bill will affect so many of my constituents and has the potential to affect many British citizens throughout the country.
We have heard that one Conservative Member will vote against the Bill. Although some Conservative Members may have the excuse of ignorance about the Bill's effects, some of them know only too well the misery, humiliation, financial loss, unfairness and racism that will flow from the Bill. If they march through the Lobbies with the Government tonight, they should look to their consciences.
One of the strengths of the appellate system in relation to visits is the guarantee of fairer decisions by administrators. I worked in the Home Office and I am familiar with the type and grade of official who makes such decisions, and I cannot understand how Ministers think that it is acceptable to remove checks and balances from middle-ranking, often not entirely satisfactorily trained, executive grade officials in the Home Office. They leave relatives of British citizens liable to arbitrary and unfair decisions.
At this late stage I do not expect to change anyone's mind about clauses 9 and 10, but I should like to convey, both to my hon. Friends who may be wondering why we cannot proceed to a vote and Conservative Members who are to vote with the Government what it feels like to be a Jamaican, a Pakistani or a Turk who has lived in the countryside and saved the equivalent of many years' salary to come to this country for a wedding, birthday or christening. In the religions and cultures of such countries, weddings and christenings mean much more than they do to most of us. I want to try to convey to hon. Members what it means to have saved the equivalent of many years' salary, put on one's best clothes, left the Jamaican or Bengali countryside, travelled to a big city in one's own country for the first time and taken an aeroplane to Heathrow only to be humiliated by the sort of treatment that is ritually handed out to black people visiting this country.
10.30 pm
Like many Opposition Members, I have been telephoned at all hours of the night by frantic relatives who, at the last minute, have realised that a loved sister, cousin, grandparent or even parent will not be able to come to a wedding or a christening. It is hard to convey to people who are not familiar with those cultures what such a denial means to the families involved.
It will be starkly obvious to black British citizens whose relatives are unable to visit them for such family occasions that if they were French or German—if they were white —their relatives would be able to visit them without encountering all the hindrances. No other clause in the Bill more clearly reveals the racist nature of immigration control than clause 9, which hits, not those who are coming to settle, but those who genuinely want to visit and who may not have seen their grandchildren, brothers, sisters or other relatives for 10, 20 or 30 years.
The clause is an abuse of the process. It is wholly unjustified. The majority of hon. Members do not understand how much unhappiness, unfairness and wasted money the clause will cause. Anyone in the House who knows, understands and works among those whom the clause will affect cannot, in good conscience, vote for the clauses as they stand.

Mr. Vaz: There is one brave man sitting on the Conservative Benches: the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who, through his experiences and his daily work dealing with immigration cases, has decided to come to the Chamber today to show his dissent over the Bill's proposals and to vote with the Opposition against the measure.
Clauses 9 and 10 are squalid measures that will hit out at the rights that have, for many years, been accepted as

fundamental. Before I entered the House I worked as a lawyer in a law centre in Leicester. When people came to that centre the one guarantee that I could give them when their relatives were refused admission to this country was that they could use the appeal process. That right is to be removed and the one concession that the Minister is proposing to make is an administrative one that already exists.
In Committee—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister does not wish to hear what I have to say because I want to comment directly on his visit to the sub-continent. In his submission to the Committee in which he discussed the administrative changes that he was proposing to introduce, he talked about his visit to the sub-continent. I, too, have visited the sub-continent in the past month and I, too, met the immigration and entry clearance officers whom he met. [Interruption.] He wants to know when and whom I visited. I do not think that the Minister can tell us the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in Bombay. Can he remember it? It is no use his looking at his officials. Does he know the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi? He does not. I have met Martin Hilson and David O'Rourke and I have discussed with both of them and with other entry clearance officers what the Minister proposes to do by means of this squalid measure. He proposes to put these entry clearance officers in an intolerable position. They are supposed to become judge and jury in both first and second applications.
I looked at the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings to find out whom the Minister consulted before he came to this conclusion. He did not discuss the Bill with the very people who will have to administer its provisions. He said of the system in Committee:
I then asked myself what could be done administratively to improve it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1992; c. 650.]
So the Minister consulted himself. Those who daily deal with these cases in Bombay and New Delhi have a wealth of experience and if the Minister would only ask them they would tell him that they will not be able to cope with the number of applications that will be made.
The Minister went on to say that three Members of Parliament came to see him to discuss these matters and at the end of a great struggle and fracas he emerged with these concessions. They represent no more than what already happens. If a person cannot get his or her relative into this country as a visitor, he or she goes to see the relevant Member of Parliament. That Member writes to the migration and visas correspondence unit. That unit then writes to the post abroad and the post abroad writes back setting out reasons. It is not clear how the Minister's proposals differ from what already happens.
The Minister goes on to talk about exceptional and compassionate circumstances. I refer him to the case of the gentleman who came to visit one of my constituents in Leicester. His former wife was dying in the royal infirmary in Leicester. Her last wish was to see her former husband whom she had not seen for several years. I submitted to Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, the very people to whom the Minister suggests Members of Parliament should write, a doctor's certificate, signed by a consultant at the royal infirmary. It was faxed to the office of the Minister and from there to Bombay. We asked that exceptional and compelling circumstances be considered because the woman in question was dying.
When the visa was refused, I raised the matter with the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, who is not here tonight even though these measures touch on his area of responsibility. He refused to overturn the decision. I gave a personal undertaking that if the person was allowed to come here he would return a month later, after he had seen his dying wife and attended her funeral.
In the meantime, the woman died at the royal infirmary—while the administrative procedures on which the Minister wants us to rely were under way. Finally, I went and begged the Under-Secretary of State, in his office, to reconsider the matter and allow the man to come to this country. The Minister refused to make a decision until he had been briefed. He would not accept the personal undertaking of a Member of Parliament and a doctor's certificate. He saw me in the House at 11.30 pm the night before the funeral and on the basis of that meeting he at last overturned the decision of the entry clearance officer.
Is this what Members of Parliament will have to do to get people into this country for exceptional and compassionate reasons?
When in New Delhi I dealt with the case of a gentleman of substantial means—one of the wealthiest industrialists in India. He wanted to send his son to a university in this country and was prepared to pay the full overseas fee of £10,000. He was able to show that this young man had invested £500,000 in this country. The entry clearance officer in New Delhi would not allow that young man to undertake the course of study because he said that the last time that the young man was here he went through the appeal process and therefore manipulated the situation in order to stay longer.
I appealed to the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi and tried to contact the high commissioner, Sir Nicholas Fenn, who was unfortunately suffering from food poisoning that day and was unable to see me. I tried to get through to the deputy high commissioner, but unfortunatley he had gone to Uttar Pradesh and was also unable to see me. I left my discussions with the First Secretary, who would not change his mind. He said that he would look at the case and he discussed it with his officers, but could not overrule the decision.
I gave a personal undertaking. I said, "This gentleman will return to India because his father is a substantial industrialist. He wants to remain in India and does not want to remain in Britain. He is prepared to give our country £10,000 a year in overseas fees." However, the First Secretary (Immigration) would not change his decision. He told me, "This young man has the right of appeal." I said, "That right is to be taken away by the Government." He said, "That does not matter: the right exists at the moment."
I called a press conference to publicise the case in India so that people realised in advance of Prime Minister Major's visit on 26 January how Indian citizens were being treated. Lo and behold, half an hour before my press conference the visa was issued. Those are the lengths to which hon. Members will have to go to get genuine visitors into this country and that is totally unfair.
The procedures outlined by the Minister will not solve the basic problem. During the general election campaign Conservative Members promised people that they would protect their rights, but at the first opportunity they are prepared to renege on those promises. The Minister knows

that the legislation will double the workload of every hon. Member who deals with immigration cases, but he has said that he will not restore it because of the backlog of cases.
I shall tell the Minister what happened to me when I went to the immigration appeal tribunal on Thursday. He may not like to hear about it, but he shall. I went to give evidence for a constituent who had been waiting 12 months for a case to be considered. I arrived for the hearing, but the Home Office officer who was to present the case was not there. The appeal could not proceed and the adjudicator had to telephone my office and give me a personal apology because of the way in which the Home Office had operated. Does the Minister want us to place our confidence in people who cannot turn up for agreed engagements?
It is getting late and hon. Members want to vote, but this right is extremely important and we should not be ashamed to stay here for as long as it takes to change the procedures. If the Minister does not change his mind, he will be remembered in the history of immigration law as the Minister who removed the right of appeal and wherever he goes in the country to whatever community event, he will be reminded of that.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Understandably, strong feelings have emerged in the debate. Some hon. Members have spoken with passion and sincerity. However, the debate has not been without some confusion and humbug. I am frequently impressed by the contributions of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). If it were not for a trace of self-importance that seems to creep in, he would more frequently advance most impressive arguments.
I will not stand by while any hon. Member seeks to malign officials. It is entirely wrong to name officials who cannot answer back. Some hon. Members said that entry clearance officers treat badly people who apply for visit visas. It has also been suggested that Home Office officials treat people badly and the calibre of immigration officers has been impugned.
There has been confusion. For example, a person from the Indian sub-continent, as the House knows, will require a visa. Therefore, a citizen of that part of the world who has no visa should not travel here without it and would most definitely waste an air fare if he did so. However, if that individual has a proper and valid visa and arrives here having spent the air fare but is refused entry for whatever reason, he will still have a right of appeal because he would have been turned away while he had valid documentation.
Other hon. Members spoke of the Caribbean. As was pointed out in Committee, most of the Caribbean islands are not countries whose nationals require a visa to visit here. Jamaica, which was once my home, has been mentioned. Jamaicans are not visa nationals for the purposes of visits to this country. In 1991, some 26,000 people from Jamaica visited the United Kingdom and just 392 were refused entry. As well as confusion, there has been humbug and not a little scaremongering to boot.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that in 1991, the last full year for which records are available, some 5,700,000 visitors were welcomed to the country, of which some 400,000 came on short stays, in one capacity or another, from the Indian sub-continent. The confusion and the humbug do not end there. Let us look at applications for 1991, globally, for visa applications. Some 919,000 applications were received, and 91.6 per cent. were successful at the first attempt. Of those refused, 12,300


appeals were made, of which 1,542 were allowed. I agree with Opposition Members that that is 1,542 cases about which one should think long and hard.
We had a little humour and some fun from the hon. Member for Leicester, East—why not—when he spoke about me drawing my own conclusions. The hon. Gentleman told me that he has recently paid another visit to Bombay and Delhi, but he knows that I met every entry clearance officer on post there and listened to their advice. I did the same in Islamabad, Karachi, Colombo and Dakha. When I draw my conclusions, they are based on the research that I have carried out.

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wardle: I wish to make some progress and the hon. Gentleman had a full go, but as he asks so charmingly, how can I resist his entreaties?

Mr. Vaz: Let me try to be charming again. When the Minister went to see the entry clearance officers and immigration officers, did he discuss the removal of the right of appeal? Did he discuss the implications for their daily workload of removing the right of appeal?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman's question is a little disingenuous because, if he had any pretensions to government, he would know full well that no Minister could talk about a Bill that had not been published and presented to Parliament. He will appreciate that the line of inquiries that I followed enabled me to learn a great deal while I was there.
The appeals backlog on immigration cases is about 23,000 and about half those cases involve visas for short-term visits. Opposition Members are right, of course, to say that we should look to staffing, to the calibre and training of our entry clearance officers in posts abroad and to improve the facilities and training of personnel in the Home Office. It is right for me to say that we do all of those things. Why, I wonder, is there humbug when someone makes suggestions which, if implemented, would improve administrative measures? Why should it be said, "That is not a good thing"?
Why not take a hard look at the reality of visit visa appeals, bearing in mind that no other country has quite the same mechanism? It is a creaking, improbable out-of-date appeal mechanism. It seems that its principal justification revolves round sponsors. The person who intends to make the visit will find under the present machinery that the term of his visit has long passed and the purpose of it has eluded him because it takes so long for an appeal to be sorted out. It must make much more sense to take a hard look at the procedures, instead of wallowing in compassion, and to say, "How can we improve the service for anyone who has to apply for a visit visa to come to the United Kingdom; what can we do to serve him or her better?" I assure the House that to leave the current creaking and outmoded appeal mechanism in place will do the applicant no service. It must make more sense to consider the realities and to abolish the appeals that run for so long, and instead to offer a service that will enable the genine visitor—let us bear in mind that there were 5.7 million such visitors in 1991—to continue to enjoy the object of his plans, which is to come to the United Kingdom.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16—

Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: Not for the moment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I gave way to hon. Members throughout the consideration of the Bill in Committee and I have done so on the Floor of the House, so why should I make an exception of the hon. Lady, as long as she will be brief?

Ms. Abbott: I listened with great care to the Minister and he has failed to clarify the matter for Opposition Members. Even if there is a creaking right of appeal, how will there be an improvement in the service if we take away people's rights?

Mr. Wardle: People have a right to a decent, well-run service. Instead of indulging in all this compassion, the House should look for effective administrative measures, some of which are listed in the press release. It is a document that won much interest when it was published before Christmas.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would, not surprisingly, delete clauses 9 and 10 from the Bill. Clause 9 amends section 13 of the Immigration Act 1971 to provide that a person shall not be entitled to appeal against the refusal of an entry clearance, or against refusal of leave to enter, if he is seeking to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, if he is a short-term student on a course of not more than six months duration, if he is a prospective student or is a dependant of a person in one of those categories. Appeals remain in place for someone who is about to be deported or for someone who is seeking to obtain settlement in this country.
Clause 9 is necessary to streamline the appeal system to make it work properly and so to enable it to provide an effective and timely remedy to those to whom I have just referred, who will be challenging decisions which vitally and centrally affect their lives. It is not an attack on the entitlement of people who are settled in this country to have their relatives come here to visit them. Those visitors —genuine visitors will always be welcomed to this country. It is scaremongering to suggest otherwise. The measures that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is putting in place, which were the subject of the press release, will provide a speedier means of having disputed decisions reviewed and treated.
Clause 10 removes the right of appeal against decisions taken on certain specified grounds where the applicant does not meet a mandatory requirement of the immigration rules. It is worth explaining why such appeals cannot succeed at present. Again, there has been confusion. The power of the appellate authorities in determining an appeal are set out in section 19 of the 1971 Act. Subsection (1) provides that an adjudicator shall allow an appeal if he considers that the decision involved was not in accordance with the law or any applicable immigration rules, or, where a decision involved the exercise of a discretion, if he considers that the discretion should have been exercised differently. In all other cases he must dismiss the appeal. Subsection (2) provides that a decision which is in accordance with the immigration rules is not to be treated as involving an exercise of discretion simply because the Secretary of State has declined to depart from the rules.
It is right and necessary that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should retain a residual


discretion to waive the requirements of the immigration rules in exceptional circumstances as no set of rules can cater for every possible set of circumstances. The flexible use of exceptional leave in asylum cases is the obvious example of the need for that. However, the general expectation in the non-asylum cases with which clause 10 is concerned must be that the immigration rules, which reflect the policy laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and approved by Parliament, will be applied and that the function of the appellate authorities is simply to ensure that the rules have been applied correctly in individual cases. If the appellate authorities were able to direct the Secretary of State to waive the rules in particular cases, in effect they would be determining immigration policy, which is not their proper function.
Some immigration rules provide for the exercise of discretion—for example, a decision to deport will always be discretionary. Other rules contain requirements that the Secretary of State or the immigration officer has to be satisfied of certain matters that can be tested only in a balance of probabilities, such as a person's intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of a period of study. In both those cases, there is room for argument as to whether the decision is correct and an appeal may be either allowed or dismissed.
Some rules, however, contain requirements that must be met if the application is to succeed and where the question of whether the requirement is met can be easily determined on the basis of documentary evidence. When an application is refused because such a requirement is not met, the adjudicator has no option but to dismiss the appeal when it eventually comes before him. The existence of a right of appeal in such cases does nothing to redress genuine grievances; it serves only to enable those appellants who have no claim under the immigration rules to remain in this country and to spin out their stay here pursuing hopeless appeals, while delaying the hearing of other appeals that certainly do involve issues of substance. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
Government Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 clarify the types of document that are involved in mandatory refusals for the purpose of clause 10. Those are essential official documents that must be held if an application is to succeed under the relevant immigration rules—entry clearances, passports or other identity documents and work permits. I believe that that clarification will be generally welcomed. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Fraser: Not a word that has been said by the Minister justifies clause 9 being included in the Bill. The clause can be summed up in two words—it stinks. When the Prime Minister was doing his memory lane stuff in Brixton, pointing out where he used to live in Loughborough junction, why did not he point out that we had a great big piece of redundant machinery that gave people rights of appeal which he would remove as soon as he got back into office? When the Home Secretary was going around ethnic constituencies in the midlands and Yorkshire at the time of the general election, why were not people told that there was a piece of creaking machinery that the Government proposed to remove?
Clause 9 is a deceit for the ethnic communities of this country. It breaks a trust. Those people trusted the Government. There used to be a bipartisanship about fairness and decency in appeals on these matters. Clause 9

will split families, prevent reunion in times of joy, prevent visits in times of bereavement and give validity to decisions that often will be based on speculation, not evidence. Clause 9 will give credence to decisions that are often based on speculation, not evidence; and a spurious validity to previous refusals, so that people will have the stigma of an immigration refusal. It will also refuse the right of appeal at the very time that we have citizens charters which are supposed to improve the lot of those who challenge administrative decisions. This exception will remove them.
Most of all, clause 9 will be a stain on the reputation of the Home Secretary who, on the whole, is a man who is aggressive rather than spiteful, tough rather than mean. I believe that he will come to regret this occasion. It will be a stain on the reputation also of the Under-Secretary who, even if we do not agree with him, is generally considered to be fair-minded. It will be a stain on the reputation of this country. Let no one be deceived about the kind of reputation that it will create when people's right of appeal is taken away. There will be a stain also on the reputation of every Conservative Member who votes for clause 9 tonight.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 248, Noes 299.

Division No. 107]
[11.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Connarty, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corston, Ms Jean


Armstrong, Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cox, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Austin-Walker, John
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyce, Jimmy
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fyfe, Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garrett, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godsiff, Roger


Coffey, Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Graham, Thomas
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoon, Geoffrey
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hutton, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Illsley, Eric
Rogers, Allan


Ingram, Adam
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rooney, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Janner, Greville
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S.
Snape, Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stevenson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Llwyd, Elfyn
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Lynne, Ms Liz
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McMaster, Gordon
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Waller, Gary


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Alice
Wareing, Robert N


Mandelson, Peter
Watson, Mike


Marek, Dr John
Wicks, Malcolm


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Milburn, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Miller, Andrew



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. John Spellar.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)






Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Norris, Steve


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ottaway, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Page, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Paice, James


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Legg, Barry
Pawsey, James


Leigh, Edward
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Pickles, Eric


Lidington, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Lord, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Luff, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Redwood, John


MacKay, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Maclean, David
Richards, Rod


McLoughlin, Patrick
Riddick, Graham


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Robathan, Andrew


Madel, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Maitland, Lady Olga
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Malone, Gerald
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Mans, Keith
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Marland, Paul
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Marlow, Tony
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sackville, Tom


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Merchant, Piers
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Milligan, Stephen
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Mills, Iain
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moate, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Soames, Nicholas


Monro, Sir Hector
Speed, Sir Keith


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spencer, Sir Derek


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Spink, Dr Robert


Neubert, Sir Michael
Spring, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sproat, Iain


Nicholls, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony





Stephen, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wells, Bowen


Sykes, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. David Lightbown and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

REFUSALS WHICH ARE MANDATORY UNDER IMMIGRATION RULES

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 7, line 10, at end insert 'relevant'.

No. 37, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
'(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B)(a) above, the following are "relevant documents"—

(a) entry clearances;
(b) passports or other identity documents; and
(c) work permits.'

No. 38, in page 7, line 24, after 'a', insert 'relevant'.

No. 39, in page 7, line 33, at end insert—
'(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(a) above, the following are relevant documents—

(a) entry clearances;
(b) passports or other identity documents; and
(c) work permits.'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 11

CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR TRANSIT PASSENGERS

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 8, line 11, after "territory", insert
but not by reference to race, colour or religion".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 41.

Mr. Wardle: Amendment No. 40 provides that the criteria which are used to specify a group of persons who will be required to produce transit visas under the new provisions in clause 11 shall not be based on race, colour or religion. Amendment No. 41 makes a similar provision with regard to the different commencement dates which are permitted under clause 13.
In Committee some Opposition Members expressed concern that the criteria of origin or connection with a particular country or territory might be operated in a racialy discriminating way. I am pleased to move amendments which make it clear that that is not the case. The criteria that will be used will relate only to matters akin to but not necessarily confined to nationality, such as the type of passport or travel document which a person holds. Like the existing immigration controls, the new provisions will be operated without racial prejudice or discrimination. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
`() Sections 3 to 11 above and section I so far as it relates to those sections shall not take effect until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament describing those arrangements which he has made for the consideration of and adjudication upon complaints about the conduct of those within his department engaged upon the work of immigration and nationality.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 26, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
'() Sections 3 and 6 to 10 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament describing the arrangements for the training of those within his department engaged in the examination and interviewing of those who are or who may be asylum-seekers.'.
No. 27, in page 8, line 33, at beginning insert—
`() Sections 3 and 6 to 10 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has by order made by statutory instrument specified standards of training and competence for those within his department engaged in the examination and interviewing of those who are or who may be asylum-seekers.'.

Mr. Allen: Given the lengthy discussion in Committee on the complaints and training procedures, can the Minister give an assurance that he is still open to receive representations on that matter?

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Charles Wardle: I can give such an assurance. As I explained in Committee, the complaints procedure is currently under review with the object of examining whether there should be an independent element in the review.
Amendment No. 22 will prevent the main provisions from being implemented until after the results of the review have been placed before Parliament. There is no particular reason why the results should be linked to the commencement of the Bill in such a way. I expect the results of the review to be available in the next month or so. In the meantime, representations from the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Islington, North will be welcomed.
The immigration and nationality department of the Home Office places great emphasis on training in so far as it relates to asylum staff and immigration officers. Opposition Members may wish to pursue the idea which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested some weeks ago about a visit to the Harmondsworth training facilities and Croyden to learn more about the operations of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office.
I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will take up that opportunity to learn more about the functions of interpreters. He will appreciate that we must deal with 100 languages. The staff face a difficult task. As I said in Committee, we have been reviewing the Department's requirements for interpreters. That review is not quite complete. Some of the improvements which we wish to put in place before the Bill is implemented include better and more consistent procedures for recruiting interpreters and monitoring their performance, together with new guidelines.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister was a little fast on his feet, so I hope that he does not mind if I now follow him. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North which will have the effect of delaying the Bill until the review has been completed. Frankly, I see nothing wrong in that. Many of us have complained for a long time that there should be better and more extensive training facilities for those who undertake interviews.
Far more consideration needs to be given to security of those who are employed to do translation work. As the Home Secretary admitted earlier, the revelation of the true identity of a person seeking asylum is a sensitive process. People live in Britain under assumed names because of the threat to their families at home. He should also be aware that for many years secret agents have operated in Britain on behalf of several oppressive regimes, not least South Africa, Iran and Iraq. They pass information back to their Governments which is used as a basis for attacking the families, friends or comrades of those people. It is essential that anyone who is employed as an interpreter will maintain any confidences that are picked up during discussions and in translation work.
Those who undertake interviews should also be given psychiatric training so that they can understand the degree of trauma, disturbance and disorientation which people who seek asylum have suffered. I will certainly take up the Minister's offer to visit the training facilities and discuss what goes on during training. Our constituents and the people seeking political asylum in Britain whom we represent are the ones who suffer if the system does not


work properly and those who are supposed to have been trained to undertake interviews do not undertake the work properly.
Therefore, I wish that the Minister had paid slightly more attention to the amendments that we tabled and delayed the introduction of the Bill until such time as the training episode had been thoroughly examined, the report had been received and any suitable changes in it had been implemented.
May I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister will make a report or statement to the House when the review has been completed so that Members can comment on it at the review stage as well as at the evidence-taking stage which we are apparently in at present?

Mr. Wardle: The review is purely internal. I made it clear a few moments ago and in Committee that ideas suggested by Opposition Members and, indeed, other parties would be carefully considered. However, the review is an internal matter.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 8, line 47, after `territory', insert
`but not by reference to race, colour or religion'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Schedule 2

APPEALS TO SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR: SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 34, at end insert
`and the making of such a reference shall, accordingly, be regarded as disposing of the appeal'.
The amendment is intended to clarify a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in Committee. When a special adjudicator refers a case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration because he does not agree that the asylum claim is without foundation, that will be the end of the proceedings on that appeal. The reconsideration will result in a new decision and if that decision is still unfavourable there will be a fresh right of appeal.

Mr. Fraser: I was hoping for an assurance that if a case was referred back, the Home Secretary would not come a second time to a decision that the case was without foundation. It is a common cause for complaint, especially over visitor appeals, that people go to appeal and win their appeal and the matter is then referred back to an entry clearance officer or the home officer. Despite the success of the appeal, the same decision is reached all over again. It seems a double jeopardy that someone launches an appeal against the decision that the case was without foundation, the thing is referred back to the Home Office and the Home Secretary comes to exactly the same decision.
It is a great pity if, as a matter of policy, the Home Office has two bites of the cherry. These people are in considerable jeopardy. They have only two days to appeal. It seems that enough harm is done if the decision is reached once, not twice.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported. with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been thoroughly considered this evening and it obviously arouses considerable concerns in some parts of the House, which I hope that we have satisfied and answered adequately.
The need for the Bill is demonstrated and when it is on the statute book it will be a substantial improvement on our system for dealing with asylum applications. Despite the controversy over particular amendments, there is a wide range of agreement in most sections of the House.
I think that every hon. Member is agreed that Britain must continue to honour its international obligations under the 1951 convention and to adhere to our long-standing tradition of giving political asylum to people who flee here fearing persecution in their own country. I also trust that there is widespread support for the proposition that we must maintain our improving race relations and improve our community relations. We all know that those relationships are far from perfect, but we have a good record of improvement. In many ways the situation in this country is more satisfactory than that in other parts of the European Community or north America. One contributory factor to that steady improvement is the fact that the host community feels comfortable with present immigration controls.
We all know that in recent years we have faced sudden increased pressures, especially on the asylum front. About five years ago there was a sudden upsurge in the number of asylum applications. With hindsight, I do not think that that was because the world or certain key countries suddenly became more dangerous. For one reason or another there was sudden widespread awareness in the outside world that, because of the international obligations placed upon us to consider each application, an application for asylum was a way to establish residence in this country without satisfying the normal immigration rules.
Just like every other European country, we have experienced a sudden upsurge in applications. We are not alone among European countries in deciding that procedures need to be considered carefully if we are to be able to cope with those added pressures.
I could cover many of the provisions in the Bill at Third Reading, but I shall not do so as we have covered them exhaustively already. Essentially, the policy aim is to adhere to our international obligations, to investigate thoroughly each claim and to ensure that we continue to grant asylum in well-founded cases. To satisfy that obligation, it will help if we have a quicker system to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, to ensure that we turn away from these shores people who might otherwise come in excessive numbers—an important result—and who might impose a burden on our public services by establishing the right to live here when, in reality, they have no legal or any other basis for doing so.
I am sure that the pressures that we have faced during the past few years will not diminish during the coming decade. At times during the passage of the Bill it has been argued that the pressures that we face are not as acute as those faced by other European Community countries. The number of asylum applications to this country is sometimes contrasted with the 0.5 million people who


enter the Federal Republic of Germany in one year to claim asylum, which is causing the Germans to reconsider their basic law and to find out what they can do.
Because the world remains a dangerous and turbulent place and because it is easier to travel, we must expect that ever greater numbers of people will want to come to this country to improve their quality of life. I feel no resentment at that. I am convinced that if I were young and single and living in some destitute third-world country, I might regard coming to the United Kingdom to establish a different future for myself from that which I could expect to enjoy in a third-world country as a legitimate aspiration. There is a part of me—as there must be of most Members of Parliament that would like to satisfy vast numbers of those aspirations, but common sense tells us all, as it tells the majority of the British public, that we cannot accommodate flows on the scale that would follow from such a widespread and indiscriminate acceptance of entry into this country of people from poorer countries.
The 1951 Geneva convention was meant to set bounds to the right of asylum. Political asylum still means what it has always meant—the right to refuge, from a well-founded fear of individual persecution. The systems in the Bill provide a better and more sensible way to deal with that, they protect against fraud and provide a quicker way to determine all the difficult cases that are near the border line, which need to be determined with some expedition.
I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I believe that once it is in place we will see a marked improvement in our ability to deal with all the worrying pressures upon us. We will continue to discharge our obligations under the convention and in general in a humanitarian and sensible way. The Bill will enable us to do that in a practical manner.

Mr. Blair: The Bill has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition for good reasons. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee for some 59 hours, which I am informed is more than twice the time spent on the same Bill when it was put to the House before the election.
Such scrutiny of the Bill has been necessary because of the huge strength of feeling not just in the House but outside against some of its provisions. Many of its elements are thoroughly objectionable. The procedures for shortening the time in which applicants can appeal against refusal of asylum have been condemned, not just here but throughout the land, as unfair and arbitrary. Many of the rules reflecting on the credibility of applicants seem to bear little relation to the reality of their position as asylum seekers. In particular, as we learnt from earlier debates, the removal of the right to appeal from those seeking visitors' visas is a measure without any justification—no justification was put forward for the abolition of those rights.
People who come here for a wedding, funeral or to pay a last visit to an elderly relative will have their right to appeal against refusal of entry taken from them. Last year, almost 2,000 such appeals were allowed. Injustices will mount up in the future and it is no surprise that this provision has caused deep and lasting offence within the

Asian and other ethnic minority communities. As was pointed earlier, not once was that provision put before the people in an election manifesto; it was concealed before the election and introduced afterwards.
We do not take exception to the detailed provisions of the Bill alone, but to the ethos and prejudice that underlie it. We take exception to the assumption that asylum seekers should be treated as bogus until shown to be genuine. We take exception to the assumption that those from Pakistan or India who wish to visit their relatives will not feel the same sense of injustice and outrage as we would were we to be denied the right to visit our relatives in another country.
That prejudice, which runs throughout the Bill and which was the unspoken sentiment behind the entire deliberations of the Committee is nasty—worse than that; it is calculated. It is part of a design to play up this issue not for any interests of the public or the country, but simply for the interests of the Conservative party which sees that political capital can be made out of it. We saw that in debate after debate. The Home Secretary may have been fairly moderate on Third Reading, but hysterical claims were made earlier when isolated cases of fraud were used to construct an entire argument to provide that the current system is subject to wide-scale abuse.
An attempt has been made to portray anyone who has opposed the provisions on the ground of natural justice as someone who is advocating an irresponsible or open-door policy for immigration. All that has been done in the knowledge that those who will be most affected by the Bill will be of a different race or colour. I cannot believe that that is irrelevant to the way in which the Bill has been handled. This is a matter which arouses alarm among some of the population and which is designed to arouse the most virulent type of nationalism among others. An attempt has been made to pretend with varying degrees of crudity that those who seek to enter this country do so from the worst of motives rather than the worst of circumstances. Some elements of the debate may have been more elevated than that, but in several respects we have witnessed a fairly distasteful exercise—an attempt, under the guise of making necessary regulations, to stir up passions and prejudices that were better left dormant.
It will not be Members of Parliament who suffer once the Bill is enacted: it will be those who are least able to defend themselves and in the poorest condition to withstand some of its provisions—those most vulnerable to racial sentiment. I do not believe that that can possibly help good race relations in this country. The way in which the Bill is presented and the sentiment that underlies it do not merely make it objectionable in its provisions and unjust and arbitrary in its operation but reflect discredit on the Government who have introduced it.

Mr. Maclennan: The Bill reflects no credit on the Home Secretary or on the Government who have introduced it. It was conceived before the election in circumstances of political exaggeration. It was designed not to deal with an administrative problem that was out of control but to suggest that the party of government had a peculiar concern about the prospects of the people of Britain being faced with uncontrollable immigration if the party or parties of opposition were to gain office.
The then Home Secretary flagrantly stirred up racial animosity. In introducing this Bill, the present Home Secretary has, in large measure, fallen heir to a Bill designed by his predecessor—whom the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, decided should not continue in office. The present Home Secretary has compounded this unacceptable measure's ugly face by including clause 9, which enjoys little support among any of those concerned about race relations in Britain and which some of the Conservative Members who are most closely involved in these matters find distasteful at best and certainly unnecessary.
It is also an indication of the futility of our legislative process, particularly after the dominance of one party in government for well over a decade, that it has proved almost impossible to obtain any significant amendment to the Bill, even though those who have to deal with the problems of those seeking asylum and immigration agree, almost unanimously, that the Bill is misconceived. That has been true notably of those parts of the Bill that deal with the housing of asylum seekers. Local authorities, social work departments, voluntary agencies and all those agencies to whose advice the Government pay lip service have been united in saying that the Bill would work injustice and place intolerable administrative burdens upon the local authorities.
The Bill limits due process. If we had a decent constitution, the curtailment of rights of appeal would be unlikely to pass muster in the courts. But we do not have a proper constitutional system for dealing with these matters. We have to rely upon the sense of virtually all-powerful Ministers who cannot be shamed even by the more sensitive members of their own party into conceding the most modest amendments. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Madden: As a member of the Standing Committee on both asylum Bills, I have listened for many hours to Ministers seeking to justify the legislation. They have lamentably failed to do so, not only throughout those two Standing Committees, but again tonight. We heard nothing from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or their predecessors to justify the legislation. They have been unable to call in aid any objective evidence or the views of any reputable organisation or individual to justify the legislation. I very much hope that the other place will defeat parts, if not all, of the Bill. If that is not the case and the legislation becomes law, and if, because of the unrealistic appeal rights given to those seeking asylum in this country, even one man or woman is sent back to torture or death, the responsibility for that will fall squarely on the Government.
The Bill's antecedents lie in the planning that was carried out by this Administration in 1982–83 when careful decisions were taken to restrict entry into this country, predominantly by black and Asian people, whether visitors, those seeking settlement, those coming for marriage or those seeking asylum. Almost every year, more and more restrictions have been introduced by legislation or by administrative action. Each year a few more rights have been chipped away. The Bill has substantially accelerated that process.
I very much regret clause 9, which did not form part of the original Bill. As has been said, I believe that that action was deliberately taken to avoid the embarrassment of criticism during a general election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who had the courage of his convictions and voted against clause 9. I have not had an opportunity of checking the voting list, but I suspect that a number of other Conservative Members who serve constituencies with substantial numbers of black and Asian constituents know the heartache that clause 9 will cause. It will divide families, and cause considerable concern, anger and resentment in the homes of many black and Asian constituents throughout the country.
There is no justification for the abolition of that right of appeal. That abolition sends out a signal to those people settled in this country, in some cases for two and three generations, that they are not welcome here or trusted, and that their relatives and friends are not even to be given the right to visit them in this country. Feelings will run deep.
Today more than a thousand people from this country, predominantly black and Asian people, expressed their anger at the abolition of the right of appeal against a refusal to grant a holiday in this country. They fear their fears have been reinforced by some of the expressions used by the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary today—that there may well be more to come. Will those seeking settlement applications in this country be fingerprinted? Will other rights of appeal on applications to enter this country be abolished? Is it the beginning of the slippery slope towards more restrictions and more difficulty?
Those involved look to the European Community. As has been said, it is possible in theory for 300 million EC nationals—predominantly white people—to enter this country without a visa, establish a business without any recognisable assets and have their parents, grandparents and children up to the age of 21 come to join them without any difficulty. Given that such people are not obliged to apply for permission to enter or for visas of any kind, the sense is created that there are two sets of citizens in this country: first-class citizens, who are predominantly white, and second-class citizens, who are predominantly black or Asian. The thrust of this legislation, which the Home Secretary is steamrolling through the House tonight, intensifies the feeling that there are indeed two such classes of citizen.
If we are to unite and overcome the great difficulties affecting race and community relations in this country, we should not pass such legislation. We need only a one-clause Bill to introduce an effective right of appeal for all a system that will lead to applications being dealt with quickly and fairly, which is what Ministers say that they want. Such a right would help the general public. If Ministers really want to help them, there is no need for this Bill. All they need to do is inject more money into the system, providing more officials to deal with the applications.
There is no reason why applications for political asylum cannot be dealt with in six months, or 12 months at most. I do not seek to defend or justify delays of up to five years. Someone who came to see me last week had put in an application that has been considered now for five years. There is no justification for that, but we do not need the Bill to remedy it. We need a Government that is anxious


to provide justice and efficiency, not a Minister who accuses those of us who are concerned with such matters of wallowing in compassion.

Mr. Corbyn: I deeply regret the fact that the Bill has reached Third Reading. We saw off the last attempt to introduce such a Bill, with the onset of the general election, but now another Bill has returned to us.
There is enormous opposition to the Bill outside the House. Despite the attempts by newspapers to whip up support for limiting rights to political asylum in this country, considerable numbers of people have expressed concern and signed petitions when they have seen asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia, Zaire, Somalia and other countries denied entry. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition to be presented to the House tomorrow, supported by the Refugee Council. Large numbers of people are deeply worried about turning our backs on people who seek safety within our shores.
People are also worried about the barbed wire barrier constructed around western Europe to limit the numbers of people seeking safety here. In response to the racist and fascist attacks in Germany, the response has not been, as it should have been, a wholehearted attack on the fascists. Instead, the system which grants people political asylum has been blamed for the rise of the far right. People should read the history of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s and recognise what appeasement did then and what the appeasement of fascists and racists will do now.
The Bill has implications for democracy, too. Increasingly, decisions are being taken in secret by the Trevi group of Ministers, not in open debates in Parliaments. The Bill has implications for local authorities, which are expected to become the agents of the Home Office in dealing with refugee matters. It has implications for everyone's civil liberties because it will enable children to be fingerprinted merely because their parents or guardians have brought them here to seek political asylum. It will sweep away the right of appeal against totally erroneous decisions by immigration officers. It is surely a basis of democracy that anyone who makes a decision affecting others should be subject to challenge. People should have a right of redress, but the Bill will take it away.
The introduction of a visa requirement for transit passengers travelling through British airports is an extension of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That Act stops people seeking political asylum in this country and those people are primarily from Sri Lanka. The visa requirement for transit passengers will stop people in transit at airports such as Heathrow from approaching an immigration officer and seeking political asylum. The effects are quite appalling. There are obvious commercial effects, but I am more concerned about the effects on the rights of asylum seekers.
I hope that no hon. Member will ever have to seek political asylum. Millions of people who lived under oppressive regimes and sought safety and asylum in various parts of the world are now venerated as a good part of history. When the history of the 1980s and 1990s is written and people read that those who tried to escape from tyrannical regimes were denied entry to Britain, our

history will be seen as just as infamous as the histories of countries in western Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that refused asylum to Jewish people who subsequently perished in the gas chambers. The issue is as serious as that, and the Bill is part of a process of turning our backs on oppression and its causes, perhaps because we make too much money from selling arms to regimes which use them to kill their own people.
Cheap remarks have been made about those of us who supported the right of Viraj Mendes to stay in this country. I remind hon. Members who made those remarks that in the year after he was deported back to Sri Lanka, after being in this country for 16 years, 60,000 illegal killings occurred in that country. The British high commissioner was expelled from Sri Lanka a year later because he had the temerity to criticise the human rights record of its Government. Could anyone say that Mendes was sent back to a place of safety? He had to live in hiding for more than a year.
We oppose the Bill. If it is passed, I hope that the House of Lords will amend it in a way that makes it virtually useless. I hope that the campaign for decency, civil rights and the right of appeal will continue. Above all, I hope that the campaign for genuine internationalism and understanding outside the House will continue. I hope that we shall stop turning our backs on people who plead for our help and support and a place of safety. We have had enough newspaper campaigns and racist remarks in support of the Bill. I hope that future campaigns will operate differently and that we can look forward to a world based on humanity and sanity rather than one that closes doors on people who need help.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I spoke on Second Reading and voted against the Bill. It is a sad day when Conservative Members are forced against their consciences to support the Bill. The legislation will have its worst effect in my constituency because many people from the Indian sub-continent come here to stay with relatives. They do that for various reasons.
In the past this country has provided natural justice and people had recourse to the courts for mistaken decisions. That fundamental right is being taken away and that is against this country's history and traditions and its natural justice. The Bill is evil and immoral. I have opposed it and I shall oppose it again.
The Secretary of State knows that, when I last went to India, I was able to see Sir Nicholas Fenn, our high commissioner. I was given the opportunity to see some of the officers working in the British high commission in New Delhi. I am sure that they are not happy about the Bill. They did not want to spell out why they were not happy, but they knew that until now, if the entry clearance officer made a mistake, those involved could go to a court of law to test his decisions.
I am not happy about the Bill. It will affect the position of many Tory Members of Parliament in the next election. I know that during the last general election campaign many Ministers visited constituencies with a large number of Asians. Many Tory Members, who have thousands of Asians and black people in their constituencies, know that they now have potential political foes. I know that promises were given to the Asian communities and lies were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can rephrase that.

Mr. Khabra: I can put it this way. Untruths were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order as long as he is not saying that anyone has told lies in the House.

Mr. Khabra: The Conservative party is the party of family. It believes in family unity. Family members should be able to meet each other in this country. A false promise had been made. People were not told the truth. Conservative Members should take note of the fact that in the next election—perhaps the council elections in 1994, or the elections for the European Parliament—their party will not be spared. They should consider their position. I know that many of them are already searching their consciences and they should have the courage of their convictions and vote against this wicked, evil Bill. I oppose it and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 243.

Division No. 108]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Alexander, Richard
Clappison, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butler, Peter
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fishburn, Dudley


Carrington, Matthew
Forman, Nigel


Carttiss, Michael
Forman, Michael (Stirling)


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)





Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, John
Milligan, Stephen


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bayley, Hugh
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blair, Tony
Enright, Derek


Blunkett, David
Etherington, Bill


Boateng, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyce, Jimmy
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Garrett, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet





Harvey, Nick
Olner, William


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heppell, John
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Pope, Greg


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Mutton, John
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jamieson, David
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'slde)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jowell, Tessa
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Keen, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Simpson, Alan


Khabra, Piara S.
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Macdonald, Calum
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wright, Dr Tony


Mudie, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


O'Hara, Edward

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,

That Mr. William Ross be added to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Procedure (Public Petitions)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Fourth Report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure, relating to Public Petitions (HC 286).

Mr. Gary Waller: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order, order.

PETITION

Garden Centre, Stockton-on-Tees

Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg leave to present a petition collected by Peter Barratt's garden centre, Yarm road, Stockton-on-Tees, and signed by 1,324 people. It says simply that they want to be able to continue to shop at their local garden centre on Sunday mornings and afternoons.

To lie upon the Table.

Hillingdon Hospital (Incinerator)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: My purpose in speaking in this Adjournment debate is to make the House aware of the deep sense of grievance felt by my constituents in Hillingdon about the pollution of their environment caused by the operation of the Hillingdon hospital incinerator plant. It is also to call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to use his considerable influence and powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to protect the people whom I represent from the emission of noxious substances into the atmosphere, the noise caused by the operation of the incinerator and the disturbance caused by the delivery of clinical waste at all hours in large vehicles in a residential area.
I also call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the people who sent me to the House to represent them can enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes and gardens—which is surely every Englishman's right—and to see that the statutory body established by Parliament to license the proper disposal of waste puts the interests of residents first, not last, and that it cracks down on the illegal activities of those who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions. Above all, I want the existing operation of the incinerator plant in a residential area brought to an end as quickly as possible.
This is a classic example of the kind of case that a Member of Parliament brings to the House in his representative capacity. The background is that an application was submitted by Hillingdon area health authority to Hillingdon council in July 1990 for an extension to the incinerator plant at Hillingdon hospital. It was made at a time when the authority had the benefit of Crown immunity. Subsequently the incinerator plant was extended to include a condenser unit and a gas plant. It was not a planning application in the accepted sense because the area health authority enjoyed the benefit of Crown immunity. It was, therefore, required only to consult the local planning authority before proceeding with a development that would otherwise have required planning permission in the normal way.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that immunity was removed from health authorities on 1 April 1991, but still existed when the proposals were considered. Local residents were consulted by Hillingdon council's planning department, and six residents responded. In November 1990, the council's environment sub-committee decided that, had this been an application for normal planning permission, approval would have been granted subject to conditions. However, it was not, and still is not, possible for the council to attach conditions in respect of consultations. Consequently, the council states that there are no conditions to fulfil. As far as I can tell, the only body able to attach conditions was, and is, the London Waste Regulatory Authority, which is responsible for licensing the operation of the disposal of waste.
Having said that, I should add that it is important to put the proposed extension into perspective. I understand that, at the time when residents were consulted by the local planning authority, the original incinerator burnt 10 to 15 tonnes of clinical waste each week; it was burnt during the


daytime only. The waste originated from three local hospitals in the health authority's jurisdiction. The only annoyance to local residents was the occasional emission of smuts which spoilt the washing on local washing lines, and minor damage to the paintwork of cars parked in the area. Even those difficulties had been minimised following representations that I had made, over a number of years, on behalf of my constituents.
It was against that background that local residents were advised that the proposed extension to the original incinerator was needed to facilitate the installation of a cleaner burning plant to enable compliance with legislation governing emissions to the atmosphere. Local people also believed that the extension was to cater for local needs alone. It was therefore not surprising that only six residents responded to the consultative process, and that the planning authority would have recommended acceptance had this been a normal planning application. In fact, the position has turned out to be very different from what was expected.
A number of local residents consider that the local planning authority misjudged, or was not properly informed about, the scale of the development and the impact that it would have on a residential area. They also tell me that they consider that the use of Crown immunity was inappropiate, and that the local health authority's proposals should have been subjected to statutory "bad neighbour" development procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies.
Let me now describe the reality of the situation that faces my constituents. It is not a comparatively minor extension to the incinerator plant, or just an improvement in measures to control emissions to the atmosphere adopted by a benevolent health authority; in fact, it has turned out to be a fairly substantial clinical waste incineration operation, run by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Blue Circle Industries. In other words, it is a commercial waste disposal industry, operating 24 hours a day in the middle of a residential area and burning not 10 to 15 tonnes—as happened previously —but 300 tonnes of waste each week.
It appears that to achieve that massive increase in throughput, the old incinerator plant was virtually demolished, and has been replaced with a new and larger building. At the outset, the operators began burning rubber tyres, and stopped only as a result of local opposition. Moreover, it started to operate before a certificate of registration had been obtained from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Although an application was made on 21 March, it was not granted until 27 November 1991. Despite requests by local residents to Basic Energy to see the licence and the authorisation by HMIP, they were not granted.
Another aspect of the matter that infuriates my constituents is that clinical waste is being delivered to the plant from all over the country—from places as far away as Durham and Newcastle. There are inadequate storage facilities for the waste. I am talking about dressings, disposable syringes and similar material that one would expect would have to be disposed of by hospitals carrying out surgical operations and the like.
For this and other reasons, large vehicles are being unloaded throughout the night, with all the associated

noise that that causes. I am told that there is no ash facility under cover and that ash was stored in open containers adjacent to the hospital swimming pool. This ash contained unburnt clinical dressings and syringes. Consequently, my constituents maintained that Basic Energy was not observing the conditions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's registration, although that was subsequently remedied. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution also issued an eight-point improvement notice on this operator, but unfortunately the problems persist.
I come now to the responsibilities of the London Waste Regulatory Authority. What action has it taken to deal with the problems faced by local residents who are unable to use their gardens in the summer because of noise, smells and other similar manifestations? The London Waste Regulatory Authority does not seem to have acted promptly, and it was not until comparatively recently that it took action and insisted that the plant should be run properly.
Why did the LWRA apparently permit an unauthorised incinerator plant to continue in operation without a licence? Why did it take so long to act, following alleged breaches of conditions of its licence? It was, after all, at a meeting of the authority's licensing and registration sub-committee on 21 July 1992 that the licence was eventually granted. At that meeting, the officers were instructed to
take further appropriate enforcement action in consultation with the Chief Solicitor, should operations at the facility not be in full compliance with the licence, including the working plan, within one week of its issue, save that no enforcement action shall be taken if the facility has ceased to operate by the end of that week and remains non-operational until such time as full compliance with the terms of the licence can be achieved.
Subsequently, following the alleged breaches of the conditions, LWRA officers visited the site. A prosecution is now pending at Uxbridge magistrates court. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the prosecution. However, I ask him to tell me how the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can and will be activated to protect my constituents. Following a meeting with my hon. Friend, I understand that it is necessary for the operator of this incinerator plant to reapply for a new licence. As I understand the position, it must be applied for between 1 October 1992 and the spring of this year.
I believe that the views of HMIP will be of the utmost importance in considering whether a new licence should be granted. I believe that it should not be granted. I consider it to be unacceptable to permit the storage and burning of clinical waste from all over Britain in an incinerator plant located in the middle of a residential area. There are other commercial incineration facilities well away from people's homes that could be utilised for this purpose. That is where hospitals from all round the country should send bandages, syringes, low-level radioactive waste material and other material which needs to be disposed of. Surely, if the Environmental Protection Act 1990 means anything, we should insist on the closure of this plant now.
This is an important test case. If the incinerator continues as it is at present, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be shown to be wanting. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to act and to show that he and HMIP are determined to stop this pollution without delay.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I am well aware of the public complaint surrounding the Hillingdon hospital incinerator. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend several times, and met him to discuss this distressing matter. I am sorry to hear that his constituents are still unhappy with the situation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for vigorously pursuing the matter in the interests of his constituents.
It might be helpful to the House if I were to set out some of the background to this matter because it is slightly complicated. In July 1990, Hillingdon health authority referred a proposal to the London borough of Hillingdon, as the local planning authority, to replace its existing incinerator, which was a very rudimentary affair, and could not possibly have met present day standards for pollution control. That was done under the arrangements then in force for Crown development as set out in circular 18/84. By this procedure, the developing department, although benefiting from Crown immunity, notifies the planning authority of its proposal either in outline or in full detail. If the planning authority objects and the dispute cannot be resolved, the developing department may refer the case to the Secretary of State. Although the new incinerator was considerably larger than the old one, the local authority raised no objections, and the proposal was not referred to the Department.
The new incinerator was subsequently built during 1991 and is owned and operated by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd., a member of the Blue Circle group of companies. The incinerator built by Basic Energy has up-to-date pollution abatement equipment and monitoring and control systems, and was designed to achieve present day standards. In principle, that is surely a most beneficial way of disposing of waste of this kind, both rendering the waste biologically and chemically harmless and reducing the emission of combustion products from the hospital's own heavy oil-fired boilers. In addition, the heat generated from the incinerator of the clinical waste is used to raise steam to heat the hospital.
Under current legislation releases to the air from the incinerator are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The London Waste Regulatory Authority regulates the waste disposal operation. Both bodies are obliged to register or licence a proposed activity unless they believe that harm will be done to the environment or that there is a danger to public health.
HMIP registered the incinerator in November 1991 under the legislation current at the time, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As required by statutory instrument 318 of 1989, the public was consulted, but no responses were received from local residents.
The regulation of the delivery, handling and storage of clinical waste, and the disposal of the ash from the incinerator, fell to the LWRA. Initially, there was some uncertainty in the LWRA about whether the site required a waste disposal licence under the Control of Pollution Act because of the imminent application of integrated pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
At the end of 1991, the LWRA advised Basic Energy that a licence would be required. A licence was granted in July 1992 after extensive public consultation, although under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the only statutory consultees are the National Rivers Authority and the local

waste collection authority. However, since the plant has come into operation over the last year I am aware that there have been problems and that many complaints have been received from the public and routed through to my hon. Friend.
The LWRA considers that the site is being operated in breach of its licence conditions, but the company is disputing the interpretation of some of the conditions and the matter is to go to court on 25 January. I understand that the company has notified the Department of its intention to appeal to the Secretary of State against the licence conditions. In view of these developments, it would be inappropraite for me to comment any further on this matter because my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in a quasi-judicial position.
Since the operation started, HMIP for its part has not been fully satisfied with the management of the releases to the atmosphere. Inspectors visited the site 34 times in 1992—far more than is usual for plants of this type and size—and met representatives of the local community on a number of occasions to hear their complaints at first hand. They have considered prosecution on specific occasions, but there has never been sufficient evidence to support this. However, they have served two improvement notices which have secured specific improvements over and above those obtained by the constant pressure exerted by inspectors.
HMIP has arranged for independent tests on emissions to air on a number of occasions as well as requiring more tests from the company. The most recent tests done on behalf of HMIP show that the incinerator emissions are within the current standards set by the conditions of the certificate of registration.
I also know that offensive odours have occasioned complaints and HMIP has arranged for Warren Spring laboratory to carry out an odour assessment. The results are due shortly and I will let my hon. Friend have a copy of them in due course.
HMIP has also received complaints about the frequency with which the incinerator dump stack operates. The dump stack is necessary for safety reasons and HMIP is satisfied that its operation does not harm the environment. None the less, it has called for a programme, which is shortly to be completed, to reduce the number of times that the dump stack is used and to improve the standards of maintenance of the dump stack and its control system.
As well as releases to the atmosphere, I understand that local residents have complained about noise pollution and my hon. Friend mentioned it tonight. This is primarily a matter for the local authority. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 now provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise which they consider to be a statutory nuisance.
For completeness, the House may want to know that the operation of the incinerator is also authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to continue the disposal of small quantities of radioactive waste from patient care. This is a common practice at hospitals and HMIP has reassessed the emissions and remains fully satisfied that the public are properly protected.
Under the legislation operating at the time the new incinerator was commissioned, the regulation of the site was split between HMIP and LWRA. On 31 October 1992, the incinerator fell to regulation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is powerful new legislation


which applies integrated pollution control to air, water and land. Basic Energy has submitted an application for authorisation as required by the Act and this will be placed on the public registers held by HMIP, the local authority and the National Rivers Authority.
I can assure my hon. Friend that HMIP will scrutinise the application closely and, before determining it, will take into account all comments from members of the public and the statutory consultees. The company will have to demonstrate that it can meet the new plant standards laid down by the chief inspector's guidance notes for clinical waste incinerators. In anticipation of that, and under pressure from the LWRA, I understand that the company has already applied for planning permission to extend the incinerator building to improve its waste handling practices, and I presume that that is an attempt to deal with the problem of bins being loaded, as shown by the photos that my hon. Friend kindly sent me.
I do not wish to say anything tonight about the conditions to be set in any authorisation as that could prejudice the position of the Secretary of State as regards appeals against decisions by Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution. Indeed I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that in this matter there are a number of things which I cannot say because of legal reasons and which prevent me from appearing as sympathetic as I would like to be to the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and to his constituents. I cannot discuss any appeal against the licence condition, nor any matter which is to come before the courts. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also understand that I cannot discuss any matter relating to the

planning permission currently being sought nor, as I have just said, any condition to be set under integrated pollution-control legislation.
Although I cannot go into those issues now, I am very well aware of local public concern about the plant. I can assure my hon. Friend that laws against pollution will be firmly upheld. HMIP, the LWRA and the local authority have, I know, all been doing what they can, within the powers that they have, and have secured improvements in the operation of the plant, which will be consolidated in any authorisation issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that they will continue to keep the operation under close supervision so as properly to protect the environment for us all.
But it is only fair to my hon. Friend that I should make it clear to the House that I will not permit pollution control legislation to be used to close an industrial site which local residents feel is sited in the wrong place. That would be a misuse of pollution control law to deal with a matter which is properly for planning law. Therefore, I cannot—to use my hon. Friend's words—bring its operation to an end, as he asks, merely because it is sited in a residential area, even though I have every sympathy for him and for his constituents. I repeat my assurance that, now that the incinerator is under the control of the integrated pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, its tough provisions will be fairly applied—but applied they will be. I hope that that will improve the local environment and that my hon. Friend's constituents will see that the law is adequate to protect them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.